jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (08/06/89)
Let me reiterate: the idea for a designated vote counter is a good
one. Bill, reassert yourself.
Jeff Daiell
--
Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum chaney@ms.uky.edu (Dan Chaney) (08/09/89)
In article <5554@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > >Let me reiterate: the idea for a designated vote counter is a good >one. Bill, reassert yourself. > What response does one get to the idea of a panel of vote takers? That is, these 12 people have volunteered themselves/sites as vote takers. Someone that wants to have a vote contacts any one of the twelve he/she chooses and asks them to run the vote. These sites would be well-connected, be aware and cognizant of the rules and help streamline the voting process. It might also increase the accuracy (less bounced mail, don't have to suffer "I didnt think of that" so much, etc) as well as reduce the overhead of mailers everywhere. >Jeff Daiell -dan >-- > Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum ibid. -- Daniel Chaney Mail guy, archiver or Accidental Student..you decide. {uunet and the like}!ukma!chaney chaney@ms.uky.edu chaney@ukma.BITNET Thank you, Breathed, for showing that humanity lives, even in the comics.
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (08/10/89)
In article <12371@s.ms.uky.edu> chaney@ms.uky.edu (Dan Chaney) writes: >What response does one get to the idea of a panel of vote takers? That is, >these 12 people have volunteered themselves/sites as vote takers. There is certainly no reason why a volunteer vote-taker couldn't run the vote. This is a particularly good idea for would-be vote takers who are on poorly-connected sites or leaf nodes. But it shouldn't be required. If someone is on a well-connected site there is no reason why they can't run their own vote. While there have been problems with votes, practically all of them have to do with connectivity woes. There has never been a proven case of voting fraud. If we can't trust the vote-takers to be honest, we might as well chuck the whole voting process. --Greg
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (08/16/89)
In article <5554@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
: Let me reiterate: the idea for a designated vote counter is a good
: one. Bill, reassert yourself.
I'm back. My apartment was flooded and my computer damaged. But all
is well now, except that I'm over a week behind in answering anything.
Anyway, to repeat my earlier message: if anyone wants someone to run
a vote, because they don't know how to or can't do it, are not well
connected, or whatever, I'll be happy to run it from my machine. I've
run a vote once before and don't have any problems with doing it
again.
It might be a good idea if Greg were to put a list of people who are
willing to count votes into his monthly postings on
news.announce.newgroups. I do *not* think that it is a good idea that
votes be required to be taken by someone in that list.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.combsa@telotech.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (08/17/89)
I also am willing to do vote counting, from my uunet account (it being a
Usenet issue). Those interested should send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net --
not the other accounts I use.
++Brandon
--
-=> Brandon S. Allbery @ telotech, inc. (I do not speak for telotech.) <=-
Any comp.sources.misc postings sent to this address will be DISCARDED -- use
allbery@uunet.UU.NET instead. My boss doesn't pay me to moderate newsgroups.
** allbery@NCoast.ORG ** uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!{allbery,telotech!bsa} **SLOANE@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) (08/17/89)
In article <1989Aug16.062825.1746@twwells.com>, bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: > It might be a good idea if Greg were to put a list of people who are > willing to count votes into his monthly postings on > news.announce.newgroups. I do *not* think that it is a good idea that > votes be required to be taken by someone in that list. I would be happy to run votes for people, too. I agree that we shouldn't have a "list" of acceptable vote takers, and only allow them to run votes. While there might be some advantages to having a disinterested party run all votes, I haven't seen any evidence to support any vote fraud by any vote taker, and a person who is interested in the group creation would probably put a little more effort into the project. +-------------------+-------------------------------------+------------------+ | Bob Sloane \Internet: SLOANE@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU/Anything I said is | | Computer Center \ BITNET: SLOANE@UKANVAX.BITNET / my opinion, not my | | University of Kansas\ AT&T: (913) 864-0444 / employer's. | +-----------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------+
tjw@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (08/27/89)
In article <8827@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> SLOANE@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) writes: >In article <1989Aug16.062825.1746@twwells.com>, >I would be happy to run votes for people, too. I, too, would be happy to collect "votes". Terry J. Wood University of Pittsburgh -- (UUCP) {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore, cadre}!pitt!cisunx!cisvms!tjw (BITNET) TJW@PITTVMS (or) TJW@PITTUNIX (Internet) tjw%vms.cis.pitt.edu@unix.cis.pitt.edu (CC-Net) CISVMS::TJW (or) 33801::TJW (or) CISUNX::tjw (or) 33802::tjw