sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (12/07/89)
Sorry if this has been discussed recently. I've finally taken myself together and started skipping all articles that doesn't concern groups I'm interrested in.) In the call for vote for talk.problems I read: >The voting period will last for 30 days from Monday, Nov. 20, 1989. This >posting will be repeated every two weeks. And some days ago Rich $alz called for votes to news.lists.ps-maps(?) with voting lasting from Dec. 1st to New Years Eve. Wasn't the guidelines changed a little while ago to say 21 days? OK, the guidelines says "for at least 21 days", so there is no violation, but the implication for this is that I could say that the voting period for comp.lang.cobol is 60 days and with repeating the call for votes every now and then, I would maybe get my necessary 100 votes difference after 45 days or so. I don't think that would be considered fair. (The comp.lang.cobol vote is running for 21 days and no longer.) One argument for shortening the voting period was to speed up group creation, and from that point of view it is only in the group champion's interest to keep the period short. Another argument, as I see it, is that shortening the voting period also means sharpening the creation threshold a little. For instance, the last vote I ran on rec.music.cd would have failed if I only had been taken votes for 21 days. (The result was 144-43 and the 100 limit was passed on day 28 or 29.) Have I misunderstood all, or am I the only one to follow the guidelines these days? -- Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se Mail me your votes on comp.lang.cobol.
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (12/07/89)
In <531@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes: >And some days ago Rich $alz called for votes to news.lists.ps-maps >with voting lasting from Dec. 1st to New Years Eve. > OK, the guidelines says "for at least 21 days", so there is no >violation, >Have I misunderstood all, or am I the only one to follow the >guidelines these days? That's a cute self-satisfied question, but obviously wrong. Your article is self-contradictory. Please explain what I am doing wrong. It was never formally decided, but the consensus seemed to have been 21 or 30 days is fine. /r$ -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net. Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/07/89)
In article <531@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes: > Wasn't the guidelines changed a little while ago to say 21 days? > OK, the guidelines says "for at least 21 days"... Yes, I believe I may have been partly responsible for this last detail. Greg wanted to change it to 21 days, but I pointed out that comp.unix.i386 would have failed under that criterion. I suspect he just put the "at least" in to shut me up. I also suspect that if you put more than a 30-day call for votes out you'd get the Sexton treatment. A 21-30 day range seems reasonable to me, at the proposer's whim. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "If you want PL/I, you know where to find it." -- Dennis