jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) (02/16/90)
While Matt's proposal has some merit, I think it also
has one fault that many others have: overcomplexity.
Voting yes/no on the group itself, and having a
name ballot like:
sci.name1
talk.name1
soc.name1
sci.name2
where whichever name (1) met the 100-over and 2/3 rule and (2)
got the most votes would become the name, is simpler.
Actually, the present system does pretty well; it's just
the occasional abuses that irk people so much. How about
we look into ways to prevent those abuses while retaining
ye olde statuse quoe?
Jeff
--
Thank you for not coercing.