Xref: utzoo news.groups:18550 comp.sys.mac:50219
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!haven!mimsy!mojo!russotto
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Do not reorganize comp.sys.mac.*
Keywords: multiple creation renaming crossposting
Message-ID: <1990Mar9.150545.21738@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 9 Mar 90 15:05:45 GMT
References: <1990Mar7.195114.1077@diku.dk> <25F6D310.5483@tct.uucp>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (The News System)
Organization: Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Lines: 28

In article <25F6D310.5483@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>According to stodol@diku.dk (David Stodolsky):
>
>Mr. Stodolsky was roundly criticized for trying to piggyback the group
>comp.groupware.f onto the back of the comp.groupware vote.  Admirably,
>he took his medicine and didn't make a stink.

As I recall, he tried to stick it on after discussion, not before.  And he
didn't run a separate vote for the '.f' group, he assumed that a vote for
comp.groupware was a vote for the '.f' group.

>Now we have Chuq trying to do the same thing he criticized earlier.
>Although I do not doubt that Chuq is trying to fill a need, I cannot
>believe that the world will come to an end if we have to wait through
>several votes.  And if a hurry is required, we'll just have to run
>them concurrently.
>
>Chuq, well known or not, should follow the same guidelines as the rest
>of us.  If we make an exception, then the guidelines really are a
>sham, and should be repealed without delay.

They aren't a sham (though certain net.people think so), they just aren't
THE LAW.  They are GUIDELINES.  In any case, since Chuq is running concurrent
votes in the same call for votes, the scheme is equivalent to running separate
concurrent votes, just more convenient.
--
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?