billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,) (02/24/89)
From article <3177@ficc.uu.net>, by jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell): > Casting a vote in someone's name w/o that individual's permission > is *extremely* unethical --- and startlingly presumptuous. [...] > Is there a way to preclude such permissionless autovoting on the net? Local vn documentation states that if there is general agreement among the users of a mailing list that a newsgroup should be created, then the mailing list can be counted as a block of YES votes, en masse. As a practical matter, I have no intention of enduring hate mail from someone who objects violently enough. Thus, the plan was to distribute a mailing list article saying that we were going for a newsgroup (as if they weren't already going to read the same declarations in comp.lang.ada and comp.software-eng), and to send e-mail if there are violent objections. As another practical matter, even if I didn't agree to drop the YES vote of anyone who objected, they could still submit a NO vote and at least neutralize the YES. The comp.sw.components Mailing List is presently 96 members strong, and a grand total of 2 have so far stated that they want to be on the mailing list but would not presently support a newsgroup. They are more than neutralized by 3 people who voted in favor of the newsgroup but did not want to be on the mailing list. Therefore, I think this essentially amounts to a tempest in a teapot, and I do anticipate that the comp.sw.components newsgroup will become a reality by year-end. Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu comp.sw.components Mailing List administrator
tse@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Tse) (02/24/89)
[followup has been limited to news.groups] In article <4535@hubcap.UUCP> wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >From article <3177@ficc.uu.net>, by jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell): >> Casting a vote in someone's name w/o that individual's permission >> is *extremely* unethical --- and startlingly presumptuous. [...] >> Is there a way to preclude such permissionless autovoting on the net? > > Local vn documentation states that if there is general agreement > among the users of a mailing list that a newsgroup should be created, > then the mailing list can be counted as a block of YES votes, en masse. Uhh... I have a vague memory of you using ``local vn documentation'' as justification before. The answer is now, as it was then, that the documentation is meaningful only if reflects the net opinion. And practically everyone's understanding is that mailing list membership does not equal yes vote on newsgroup formation. vn documentation is not holy writ. > As a practical matter, I have no intention of enduring hate mail from > someone who objects violently enough. Thus, the plan was to distribute > a mailing list article saying that we were going for a newsgroup (as if > they weren't already going to read the same declarations in comp.lang.ada > and comp.software-eng), and to send e-mail if there are violent objections. I hope you are going to notify news.groups also. This is probably just an oversight. > As another practical matter, even if I didn't agree to drop the YES vote > of anyone who objected, Whoa... You think you have THE CHOICE OF NOT AGREEING TO DROP SOMEONE'S INVOLUNTARY YES VOTE? (Sorry for shouting, but I am shocked and outraged.) This is the USENET, not <insert favourite dictatorship here>. > they could still submit a NO vote and at least > neutralize the YES. How very magnanimous of you. Do you mean that someone on your mailing list can at best abstain from the vote (their forced YES vote neutralized by their voluntary NO vote)? And they agreed to this? Wow. I wonder what Patrick Henry would say about your vote counting? > The comp.sw.components Mailing List is presently 96 members strong, > and a grand total of 2 have so far stated that they want to be on > the mailing list but would not presently support a newsgroup. They > are more than neutralized by 3 people who voted in favor of the > newsgroup but did not want to be on the mailing list. Are you collecting votes now? This has not been properly broadcasted in news.groups. If you have not called for a vote, then all the ``votes'' you have been receiving do not count. If you are indeed collecting votes (according to the regulation USENET voting protocol), please tell us. Many non-mailing list non-comp.lang.ada non-comp.software-engr readers might want to vote. > Therefore, I think this essentially amounts to a tempest in a teapot, > and I do anticipate that the comp.sw.components newsgroup will become > a reality by year-end. Yeah, I guess I must be overreacting. What's the right to vote worth anyway? Lord knows, you can't eat it, and you can't sell it. Heck, it even gets in your way when you try to form a newsgroup. --Gary Tse, tse@cory.berkeley.edu or ..!ucbvax!cory!tse P.S. Isn't it annoying when you are trying to discuss a practical issue, and some kid insists on talking about morality instead? Maybe we can punt morality while we are at it.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/25/89)
In article <4535@hubcap.UUCP>, William Thomas Wolfe,2847, writes: > > The comp.sw.components Mailing List is ... 96 ... strong, > and ... 2 have so far stated that they want to be on > the mailing list but would not presently support a newsgroup. They > are more than neutralized by 3 people who voted in favor of the > newsgroup but did not want to be on the mailing list. > > Therefore, I think this essentially amounts to a tempest in a teapot, Someone else has already dealt with the other issues here, so I'll just deal with one: it *seems* (correctly me politely if I'm wrong), that William is saying that it's okay to be unethical and presumptuous, as long as it's on a small scale, or if only a few people are hurt thereby. *If* that's his argument, I don't buy it. Wrong is wrong, regardless of the extent to which it's practiced. Go back to my example -- of States automatically recording people registered as Democratic, Republican, or Libertarian as having voted a straight party ticket for the party with which they're registered. Would it matter if only a few members of each party wanted to split their tickets, not vote, vote a straight ticket for another party that one time, etc.? No, of course, not. I think the proposed newsgroup *should* be created. But by ethical means. Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- IN CASE OF EMERGENCY EVACUATION, REMEMBER THE TIME-HONORED RULE: WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND TECH AIDES FIRST.
billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,) (02/26/89)
From article <3193@ficc.uu.net>, by jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell): > In article <4535@hubcap.UUCP>, William Thomas Wolfe,2847, writes: >> >> The comp.sw.components Mailing List is ... 96 ... strong, >> and ... 2 have so far stated that they want to be on >> the mailing list but would not presently support a newsgroup. They >> are more than neutralized by 3 people who voted in favor of the >> newsgroup but did not want to be on the mailing list. >> >> Therefore, I think this essentially amounts to a tempest in a teapot, > > > Someone else has already dealt with the other issues here, so I'll just > deal with one: it *seems* (correctly me politely if I'm wrong), that > William is saying that it's okay to be unethical and presumptuous, as > long as it's on a small scale, or if only a few people are hurt > thereby. *If* that's his argument, I don't buy it. OK, I will. My purpose in writing that was to indicate that due to the extremely low incidence of the situation of someone wanting to be in the mailing list but not the newsgroup, and the fact that they were outweighed by the opposite position anyway, this rather lengthy discussion was an excessive expenditure of resources relative to the size of the actual "problem". Now since you have redirected this discussion back into comp.lang.ada, etc., I will include the response that I already posted to news.groups, and I will follow the original poster's lead in trying to get this discussion back into news.groups where it belongs. From article <10301@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, by tse@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Tse): % vn documentation is not holy writ. Nice dodge. The law really isn't the law, it's just some fuzzy approximation... I like that. (As I mentioned in my response to your e-mail, upon looking for the exact source in response to your request, it was some e-mail my news administrator sent me which was originally written by Gene Spafford, who apparently is a backbone administrator or some such person). % I hope you are going to notify news.groups also. This is probably just % an oversight. I was, but the voting population wasn't expected to read news.groups. (Look at the list in context of the article!) %> As another practical matter, even if I didn't agree to drop the YES vote %> of anyone who objected, % % Whoa... You think you have THE CHOICE OF NOT AGREEING TO DROP SOMEONE'S % INVOLUNTARY YES VOTE? (Sorry for shouting, but I am shocked and outraged.) % This is the USENET, not <insert favourite dictatorship here>. No, that was just a passing thought. As mentioned in the article, I did not plan to actually use that algorithm. Further, it must be noted that people were notified as they entered the mailing list that I planned to vote their proxies YES, thus giving them an opportunity to raise objections. % Are you collecting votes now? This has not been properly broadcasted in % news.groups. I was six or eight weeks ago, and it WAS properly broadcasted in news.groups. Evidently, everyone was on vacation at the time, and only forty people or so ever responded. I will hold another vote when the mailing list contains enough hard-core YES votes to make the outcome of the election a virtual certainty. Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu comp.sw.components Mailing List administrator
rogerk@mips.COM (Roger B.A. Klorese) (02/27/89)
In article <4535@hubcap.UUCP> wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: > Local vn documentation states that if there is general agreement > among the users of a mailing list that a newsgroup should be created, > then the mailing list can be counted as a block of YES votes, en masse. Then your local documentation either applies only to local groups, or is *wrong*; if the latter is true, please correct it so no one will make the same error in judgment in the future. -- Roger B.A. Klorese MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!rogerk 928 E. Arques Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 rogerk@servitude.mips.COM (rogerk%mips.COM@ames.arc.nasa.gov) +1 408 991-7802 "I majored in nursing, but I had to drop it. I ran out of milk." - Judy Tenuta