Votes on new groups

Bullock, David bullock at kahu.lincoln.ac.nz
Fri Nov 25 14:31:04 EST 1994


In article <3b031f$sc5 at net.bio.net> kristoff at net.bio.net (David Kristofferson) writes:

>In article <bullock.78.2ED2B50E at kahu.lincoln.ac.nz>,
>Bullock, David <bullock at kahu.lincoln.ac.nz> wrote:

>>As a matter of interest, have any votes for a new group failed?

>Yes, several times.  The SYMBIOSIS group did not pass just the other
>day as mentioned on bionet.announce.  This virtually always happens
>because of lack of interest in a proposal.  We have never had enough
>opposition arise to anything to cancel a proposal through a
>preponderance on NO votes.

Thanks for the response, Dave, this interests me.  It reminds me of the 
scientific societies where voting for membership is carried out on the same 
basis, cross out the names you want to vote against; no-one is ever 
rejected.  Lack of votes is one thing, lack of negative votes another.  I 
suggest that noes are less likely to bother voting than ayes.  If that is 
the case, and it might not be, is there really any meaning in the vote?  It 
suggests that new groups might as well be established without a vote and 
disestablished after some review period on the basis of volume of postings.  
That would save a lot of bandwidth and effort, not least on your part.
What do people think?  Maybe we can transfer this discussion to the new 
admin group? (Which I voted for!)  I know, political elections work the same 
way (you have to get out the vote); but this is not politics, or is it?



David W. Bullock                                Tel: 64 3 325 3803
Centre for Molecular Biology                    Fax: 64 3 325 3851
Lincoln University                              E-mail: BULLOCK at lincoln.ac.nz
PO Box 84, Canterbury
New Zealand               "Language is the greatest barrier to communication."



More information about the Bioforum mailing list