VOTE: voting continues on comp.unix.wizards

[Richard M. Mathews]

jfh at rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>there are words called "auxillary verbs".  these words modify the verb
>in the sentence in some fashion.  in the case of "conditional auxillary
>verbs", such as "should", "might", and "may" the word implies permission.

You want to be picky about wording?  How about this line from the
guidelines:
   It must be as clearly explained and as easy to do to cast a vote for
   creation as against it, and vice versa.
This says MUST not SHOULD.  I don't have your original "call for votes,"
but it contained a statement like "if you want c.u.wizards back, send
your yes votes to my address."  Nothing was said about where no votes
should go.  Since the guidelines go on to say
   It is explicitly permitted to set up two separate addresses to mail
   yes and no votes to provided that they are on the same machine....
you can't claim you advertised the address for no votes by implying the
address is the same as for yes votes.  You even implicitly acknowledged
this error when, 2 weeks after "voting" began, you posted a note to
c.u.internals which included "where do I send 'NO' votes" in a list of
questions and complaints you received.

>when the vote was first announce in comp.unix.internals
>the voting ran 6 to 1 IN FAVOR of returning .wizards.  even after enough
>time was allowed for the article to go out, and return, the votes were
>still on the order of 5 to 1.  this is PRIMA FACIA evidence of consensus.
>even still the votes run 2 to 1.  you can't get any more "consensus" than
>that.

This message was not really a "repeat of the call for votes," but these
statistics do push the limits of these guidelines:
   Partial vote
   results should NOT be included; only a statement of the specific new
   group proposal, that a vote is in progress on it, and how to cast a vote.
   It is permitted to post a "mass acknowledgement" in which all the names
   of those from whom votes have been received are posted, as long as no
   indication is made of which way anybody voted until the voting period
   is officially over.

Also, do these stats really give evidence of a consensus on the name?
Or do they indicate that more people started to vote NO after it was
clear how to do so?  Or do they indicate that more people voted NO once
the existence of the vote became known in more of the "standard" places?
Or do they just indicate that those of us who would vote NO in a legitimate
vote refuse to recognize your vote?

>first, this is not a vote about comp.unix.esoterica.  this is a
>vote about comp.unix.wizards, and has been stated over and over
>again, has =no= bearing on what should be done with any other .unix
>group.  attempting to link this in with comp.unix.{internals,esoterica}
>is absurd.  read my lips - this has nothing to do with any other
>group besides comp.unix.wizards.

then later,

>many people have sent me "yes" votes JUST TO AVOID esoterica being
>the name.

Looks like reading your lips is as useful as reading George Bush's!

>this is eliot's response -
>> Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES: comp.unix.wizards 
>> In-Reply-To: Your message of 19 Oct 90 04:36:33 GMT 
>> Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.656579882.lear at turbo.bio.net>
>> Status: RO
>> 
>> I'll not post this article until you conclude your current vote, <...>

I agree with Eliot.  A vote posted by him must begin at or about the time
of that announcement.  If you are willing to discard all votes received
to date and start over, then Eliot should post your CFV (but I think a
rational discussion of the real issues of the creation of c.u.wizards
rather than the politics of the guidelines is still needed -- a CFD must
proceed the CFV, or I will vote NO).


The bottom line:
I believe we should wait until the end of a 6 month cooling off period
measured from the completion of the c.u reorg before trying to make
any changes to it.  We can live with c.u.internals until then (if you
can't, you really need to get a life;-).  In the mean time, proponents
of wizards, internals, kernel, esoterica, etc., can debate the advantages
and disadvantages of each and hopefully when the time comes we can have
some rational debate on the real issues, not bullshit.

Richard M. Mathews			D efend
Locus Computing Corporation		 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
richard at locus.com			  I ndependence
lcc!richard at seas.ucla.edu
...!{uunet|ucla-se|turnkey}!lcc!richard