Votes on new groups

Frederick Michael DOROSH dekosser at marge.cs.mcgill.ca
Sun Nov 27 04:36:35 EST 1994


Bullock, David (bullock at kahu.lincoln.ac.nz) wrote:

<- Snippety-snip ->
: 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?

	It seems to me that if you really want a vote not to pass, then
rather than voting 'no' you should boycott the vote entirely. If groups
almost always get refused from lack of votes, then your 'no' vote might
actually contribute to the success of the vote rather than inhibit it.

	Sounds a tad crooked to me.

	It does appear more justified for groups to merit existence on the
basis of their volume of posting, but for implementing the groups originally,
you just can't accept every (alt.plucking.nose.hairs.with.pipe.wrenches, or
insert your favorite absurdly useless nosegroup name here) that is
proposed.

'Dkc
(Oops.. that should read 'newsgroup', not 'nosegroup'. Chuckle.)




More information about the Bioforum mailing list