Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!mailrus!ncar!snowmass.scd.ucar.edu!woods From: woods@snowmass.scd.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Group creation time; favorable postings Message-ID: <6332@ncar.ucar.edu> Date: 16 Feb 90 18:32:47 GMT References: Sender: news@ncar.ucar.edu Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO Lines: 18 In article jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >I see no reason to needlessly prolong the process. Agreed. It's a question of how we define "needless". >I the YES/NO and "which name" votes run together >strikes me as a possible way of eliminating the occasional >abuses cited so often. I think this will cause a lot of problems that we don't currently have. For one thing, my vote might change depending on what name is being voted on. The only schemes I have seen described that would allow me to abstain from the creation vote while voting against names I don't like are far too complex to be easily verifiable. It's a lot SIMPLER if we just require the name to be chosen (using consensus discussion, STV, or whatever) BEFORE the creation vote takes place. --Greg