From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:2055 comp.software-eng:1141 news.groups:7608 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!ukma!gatech!hubcap!billwolf From: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.software-eng,news.groups Subject: Re: comp.sw.components & newsgroup voting Message-ID: <4559@hubcap.UUCP> Date: 25 Feb 89 18:06:02 GMT References: <3193@ficc.uu.net> Sender: news@hubcap.UUCP Reply-To: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu Followup-To: news.groups List-Id: >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 . 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