dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky) (12/06/90)
I am cancelling the Call for Votes on "Interest Group Surveys", which suggests changing the Guidelines to preferential voting. The main reason is the continuing problems with propagation and connectivity I am having. Before I posted the Call for Votes, I posted the proposal for discussion: ================ Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Path: daimi!dsstodol From: dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky) Subject: preferential voting Message-ID: <1990Aug23.184948.19665@daimi.aau.dk> Summary: New method for newgroup creation Keywords: stv survey vote create a newsgroup Sender: dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky) Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 18:49:48 GMT Lines: 172 This is a survey I prepared after discussion at the beginning of the year concerning procedures for creating new groups. Due to delay resulting from unstable net access, I am posting this now for any further comment. ==================== This apparently did not reach most persons. Similarly, when I posted the Call for Votes myself, there appeared to be propagation problems. Only a single vote came in. Here is the header: =============== Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.groupware,comp.misc,sci.misc,rec.misc,soc.misc Path: daimi!dsstodol From: dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky) Subject: ***CfV*** Interest Group Surveys (was:preferential voting Message-ID: <1990Nov8.174052.16953@daimi.aau.dk> Summary: Vote on change in Guidelines to use preferential voting Keywords: single transferrable votes STV newsgroup creation interest group Sender: dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky) Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark Date: Thu, 8 Nov 90 17:40:52 GMT Lines: 163 =============== In comparison, after the call was posted to n.a.n I received a substantial number of votes. However, I have seen a post indicating that some votes have bounced back. Finally, the local area network at my University seems to be dying with disturbing regularity lately. Also, because I am using a news machine at another university, I must connect via the Danish University's Network, that is also having problems lately. Because of these local problems, and moving of my own machine, I was unable to repost the Call for Votes and votes received, midway through the vote. However, there are several problems of a non technical nature. First, several persons have complained that the proposal is too hard to read. This is in part due to a very compact presentation. That was the result of long discussion from a year ago, the point of which was that any voting method should be expressible in 25 lines or less. A second complication is that two options are being presented simultaneously. Second, some people want to preserve the 2/3 rule even with preferential voting. These should be options for the vote. Third, the way the vote has been handled by the moderator of n.a.n is totally unacceptable to me. 1) The moderator annotated the ballot. The first lines of the Call for Votes as posted by the moderator reads: ========================== [ED- I have my misgivings about this posting, and will post them in news.groups.-eliot] p) Preferred name. Yes > 100. m) Preferred name. Yes > 100. Yes > No. c) Proposed name. Yes - No > 100. 2/3 Yes. The above lines are your ballot. Enclose ONLY these lines with your vote. ========================== During the comp.groupware vote, I made it absolutely clear that any modification to my posts was not acceptable. Further, I pointed out, at that time, that the charter for n.a.n did not authorize any action by the moderator except returning the post to its author with a note indicating it did not conform to the Guidelines. The current moderator was involved in those discussions. All posts are copyright at the source and modification of them could be considered a violation of the copyright law. More important, editorial comment make it hard to trace activities of a given person, since their comments appear under the authorship of a different individual. Since one of the few tools we have available to select articles is their author's reputation, disruption of the one-to-one connection between author's names and comments defeats certain strategies for news reading. This form of corruption should not be tolerated. It is not necessary. A moderator can follow up a post with any comments, should that be necessary (and permitted by the group's Charter and the Guidelines). This ballot annotation was not only done to the post in n.a.n, but also in a separate article (as interpreted by my newsreader - nn) crossposted to six newsgroups. The separate posting, makes it likely that duplicate votes will be transmitted, since persons see the Call twice. 2) Even though I explicitly indicated that a Call for discussion had been posted and that a discussion had taken place at an earlier time, the moderator claims, That no discussion had taken place: >I think David Stodolsky's call for votes is premature. Here's >why: > >[1] It was not openly considered in news.groups. So > significant change to the guidelines should be discussed. and then repeats this in: -------------------------- Subject: [Happy Thanksgiving!] Current Status of Votes on Newsgroups Message-ID: <Nov.25.23.31.20.1990.23116@turbo.bio.net> GROUP NAME DISCUSSION VOTE ENDS ------------------------------------------------------------ [...] Charter Change *None* Nov 25 Dec 8 Votes to: dsstodol@daimi.dk ---------------------------- Aside from not even using the original name for the post, he indicates a *Charter* change, when in fact this concerns a change to the *Guidelines* (this was corrected in the most recent Current Status). Even worst, one is left with the impression that, I just dropped this Call for Votes on the Net without any attempt to get feedback from a discussion. Also, it was originally posted for voting on Nov. 8, 1990. The above Nov. 25, 1990 date makes it look even more like I did not want discussion. Not disregarding the assistance I and others have received from Eliot Lear, I conclude from this that the moderator needs a rest. It is necessary, not only that the moderator of n.a.n act fairly, but that the moderator appear as fair. This certainly is not true at this point. I have seen a few complaints, and this means that a good number of people are having their doubts. In any case, I am glad to see discussion on this issue has been (over?) stimulated. I will post a formal Call for Discussion on this issue. -- David S. Stodolsky Office: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 21 38 Department of Computer Science Home: + 45 31 55 53 50 Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (12/08/90)
Well, it looks like Mr. Waldron finally has some competition. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "What's that thing, when people die, they take apart the body to see why?" -- St. Theresa of the Net
geyer@aylmer.uchicago.edu (Charles Geyer) (12/08/90)
In article <1990Dec5.221016.14262@daimi.aau.dk> dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky) writes: > I am cancelling the Call for Votes on "Interest Group Surveys" Good idea. > ... several persons have complained that the proposal is too hard to read. > This is in part due to a very compact presentation. That was the result of > long discussion from a year ago, the point of which was that any voting > method should be expressible in 25 lines or less. Not only very hard to read, but downright misleading. It doesn't say what it appears to on first reading. The options for which we were supposed to vote were complete gobbledegook. > Third, the way the vote has been handled by the moderator of n.a.n is > totally unacceptable to me. That's o. k. It doesn't seem to have bothered anyone else. Charlie Geyer Department of Statistics University of Chicago geyer@galton.uchicago.edu
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (12/14/90)
In article <2760203C.6C7C@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >Well, it looks like Mr. Waldron finally has some competition. Naw. David Stodolsky only comes in at 650 milliWaldrons, max. (I should know...after all, I was Dr. Waldron's victim...) -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "...flames are a specific art form of Usenet..." -- Gregory C. Woodbury