Xref: utzoo news.groups:18554 comp.sys.mac:50228 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!texbell!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Do not reorganize comp.sys.mac.* Keywords: multiple creation renaming crossposting Message-ID: Date: 9 Mar 90 12:36:30 GMT References: <1990Mar7.195114.1077@diku.dk> <25F6D310.5483@tct.uucp> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 21 In article <25F6D310.5483@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > 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. > Now we have Chuq trying to do the same thing he criticized earlier. There's one major difference. The very first thing Chuq did was run a poll on whether or not this was OK in this particular case. The result of this poll was overwhelmingly positive (like over a hundred to less than twenty). The comp.groupware.f was sprung without any discussion. And there was no way to vote for or against each group individually. > 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. Which is exactly what Chuq's doing. He's running the several votes concurrently, just with one single call for votes. Would you be happier if he issued 6 or 8 seperate calls? -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v