Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision

From: wish@pcug.com

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000

In article <33C9E0FC.1295@dial.pipex.com>, Gary Baines wrote:
>Greg Lindahl wrote:
><snip>
>> Understanding Usenet tradition does not disqualify me
>> from being a good FAQ maintainer.
>
>Perhaps ignoring an overwhelming vote to make a reasonable change to the FAQ
>does?  Ah, but I forget, you'll use any beauracratic <bad spelling I know>
>technique to avoid accepting it as a valid vote.  You remind me of one of
>those African dictators who ignore any election where they get voted out.
>Grow up.

When there is serious concern about such issues the usual procedure
is to get in someone disinterested to oversee the vote not hand over the
running of it.

However Greg seems to think that stating that the vote is a violation of
USENET tradition is an adequate response and doesn't seem to want to explain
why that tradition is a good thing.

So I'll just list a few flaws in the voting procedure.

1)One of the sides of the vote is largely composed of supporters of
USENET tradition.  That tradition calls for the vote to be carried out
by E-Mail.  A voting procedure that requires one side to betray their beliefs
in order to vote when there is an alternative is biased.
2)The Subject line is open to the interpretation that someone is merely
suggesting a vote rather than carrying one out.
3)The Request for a Vote itself was posted (or at least reached Dejanews) only
once.  Since Usenet is less than 100% reliable it is entirely possible people
could have missed it.
4)Votes are requested via USENET and since this is unreliable votes may be
easily missed.  There is no way for voters to be sure they have been counted.
5)Votes by USENET are much easier to forge than E-Mail votes.
6)Half way through the proceedings the proponent indicates that votes by
E-Mail are also acceptable and nominates himself as vote counter ( a clear
conflict of interest).
7)No voting form so it is not clear what constitutes a vote.

All that being said I popped over to Dejanews and counted votes.
Of the 58 messages in this thread (I'm assuming there are no votes in
other threads) there were 17 articles which looked like votes.

15 for
1 Against
1 Abstention
88% in favor.

There were also several people who posted, obviously had strong opinions
one way or the other but who either didn't vote or whose votes never
reached Dejanews.

References

Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
Gary Baines <g.baines@dial.pipex.com>
Mon, 14 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
kmgraphiks@aol.com (KMGraphiks)
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
Gary Baines <g.baines@dial.pipex.com>
Mon, 14 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
kmgraphiks@aol.com (KMGraphiks)
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000