gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (10/17/89)
In article <8307@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs (Gene Spafford) writes: >The Discussion >2) The discussion period should last for at least two weeks (14 >days), and no more than 30 days. >3) The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will >be moderated or unmoderated (and if the former, who the >moderator(s) will be) should be determined during the discussion >period. If there is no general agreement on these points among >the proponents of a new group at the end of 30 days of >discussion, the discussion should be taken offline (into mail >instead of news.groups) and the proponents should iron out the >details among themselves. Once that is done, a new, more >specific proposal may be made, going back to step 1) above. As was pointed out on news.announce.newgroups, the call for votes is in violation of points 2 and 3 above. I don't think the net should regard itself as bound in any way by the vote, even if positive. Why not just not send any newgroup message, and thus end it? -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!bosco!gsmith "When Ubizmo talks, people listen."
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (10/18/89)
In article <1989Oct17.060301.1344@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > > As was pointed out on news.announce.newgroups, the call for >votes is in violation of points 2 and 3 above. I don't think the >net should regard itself as bound in any way by the vote, even if >positive. Why not just not send any newgroup message, and thus >end it? I don't mean to be rude, but are you out of your mind? Shortening the aqauria discussion is a blessing from the Lord, and I don't even believe in Him! Note also that these are not votes, and even a perfectly conducted one is not binding on the net in any way. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473