comp.sw.components

comp.sw.components

[Bill Wolfe]

   Voting with regard to the proposed comp.sw.components newsgroup
   has been completed.  The totals were: 29 in favor, 13 opposed
   (30 in favor, if my own vote is included).

   Since there must be 100 more yes votes than no votes, a new
   comp.sw.components mailing list is being formed.  Everyone who
   voted in favor of the newsgroup is automatically a member of
   the mailing list, and has already been mailed the welcome message.

   If you did not vote in favor of the newsgroup, but would like to
   be on the mailing list, send me e-mail and I will add you to the
   mailing list.  Persons posting articles relating to software components
   in comp.* will generally be notified of the existence of this mailing list.

   In future votes on the creation of a comp.sw.components newsgroup,
   everyone on the mailing list will automatically count as a YES vote.


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
 

Re: comp.sw.components

[Peter da Silva]

In article <4402@hubcap.UUCP>, wtwolfe@hubcap.UUCP (Bill Wolfe) writes:
>    In future votes on the creation of a comp.sw.components newsgroup,
>    everyone on the mailing list will automatically count as a YES vote.

I would like to join the mailing list, but I may not wish to vote YES to
the newsgroup. I would strongly urge this assumption that members of a
mailing list wish to vote YES to the group be dropped.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.   `-_-'
Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.                 'U`
Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.

Re: comp.sw.components

[William Thomas Wolfe,2847,]

From article <3111@ficc.uu.net>, by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva):
> In article <4402@hubcap.UUCP>, wtwolfe@hubcap.UUCP (Bill Wolfe) writes:
>>    In future votes on the creation of a comp.sw.components newsgroup,
>>    everyone on the mailing list will automatically count as a YES vote.
> 
> I would like to join the mailing list, but I may not wish to vote YES to
> the newsgroup. I would strongly urge this assumption that members of a
> mailing list wish to vote YES to the group be dropped.

   There appears to be a general lifecycle of mailing list -> newsgroup;
   it is my understanding that the mailing list is counted as a block of
   "YES" votes when such a transition is being considered.

   At present, (requests are still coming in) there have been 3 drops
   and 45 adds, bringing the total strength of the group to 75.  The
   requirement for newsgroup creation is that there be 100 more "YES"
   votes than "NO" votes, and I think we can safely assume that this
   condition will be satisfied by the end of the year...


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu  
   comp.sw.components Mailing List administrator

Re: comp.sw.components

[Paul L Schauble]

Sorry to bother the net with this, but the clemson mailer doesn't recognize
billwolf.

Bill, please add me to the mailing list.

  ++PLS

comp.sw.components & mail difficulties

[William Thomas Wolfe,2847,]

From article <14771@cup.portal.com>, by PLS@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble):
> Sorry to bother the net with this, but the clemson mailer doesn't recognize
> billwolf.
> 
> Bill, please add me to the mailing list.

   OK, many people have had this problem, so let me explain.  vn 
   followups don't work on wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu, so I use vn on 
   billwolf@hazel.cs.clemson.edu.  Unfortunately, hazel's vn erroneously 
   takes my hazel user-id (billwolf) and glues it onto hubcap.clemson.edu,
   for a completely invalid address.  To overcome this, I usually list
   wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu in the Reply-To: portion of the header,
   and I *always* give the correct mailing address in my signature.

   Another mail problem has arisen with the comp.sw.components mailing
   list, in that the To: portion of the header enumerates all 80+ members
   of the mailing list.  Thanks to a suggestion from Jacob Gore, this
   situation is now in the process of being corrected. 

   If you have tried to submit an article to the comp.sw.components
   mailing list and been unsuccessful, please keep in mind that only
   wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu will work.  The best plan is to set up:
  
      alias comp.sw.components wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu

   in your .mailrc, to avoid any further problems.

   (Paul, I'm adding you to the list; you'll get a welcome message as soon 
    as the mail system administrator and I get some things worked out...)

   Sorry for the delays; I hope to have everything fixed by Friday.


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
   comp.sw.components Mailing List administrator
 

Re: comp.sw.components

[Peter da Silva]

In article <4455@hubcap.UUCP>, billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,) writes:
>    There appears to be a general lifecycle of mailing list -> newsgroup;

Often true, but not always.

>    it is my understanding that the mailing list is counted as a block of
>    "YES" votes when such a transition is being considered.

Not so. I am currently running the vote for comp.unix.i386. I suppose I could
have included the entire complement of the existing mailing list, but that
would be unethical. Some people prefer the mailing-list format, you know.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.   `-_-'
Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.                 'U`
People have opinions. Companies have policy. And typos are my own business.

Re: comp.sw.components

[jeff daiell]

In article <3176@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Alexina's dad) writes:
> In article <4455@hubcap.UUCP>, billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,) writes:

> 
> >    it is my understanding that the mailing list is counted as a block of
> >    "YES" votes when such a transition is being considered.
> 
> Not so. I am currently running the vote for comp.unix.i386. I suppose I could
> have included the entire complement of the existing mailing list, but that
> would be unethical. 



Here, here!  Peter is ABSOLUTELY right.   Casting a vote in someone's
name w/o that individual's permission is *extremely* unethical --- and
startlingly presumptuous.  Can you imagine, in those States where
voters list party affiliation when registering, if all those who
registered as Democratic, Republican, or Libertarian were automatically
listed as having voted a straight ticket for their respective parties?
Or as having voted a certain way on referenda?  

Is there a way to preclude such permissionless autovoting on the net?
If so, I urge adoption of that device -- even tho I personally will 
vote yes on just about any newsgroup, I *don't* want someone doing so
in my name.

Jeff Daiell


Hmmm -- one advantage to the autovoting in public elections, tho.  
There are several states where Independents outnumber partisan
registrations.  If those States would adopt the None Of The
Above option, and autovote Independents as NOTA votes ... {|8^)]




 -- 
IN CASE OF EMERGENCY EVACUATION, REMEMBER THE TIME-HONORED RULE:

           WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND TECH AIDES FIRST.

Re: comp.sw.components & newsgroup voting

[William Thomas Wolfe,2847,]

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

Re: comp.sw.components & newsgroup voting

[Gary Tse]

[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.

Re: comp.sw.components & newsgroup voting

[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.  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.

Re: comp.sw.components & newsgroup voting

[William Thomas Wolfe,2847,]

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

Re: comp.sw.components & newsgroup voting

[Roger B.A. Klorese]

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

Re: comp.sw.components & newsgroup voting

[William Thomas Wolfe,2847,]

From article <13972@admin.mips.COM>, by rogerk@mips.COM (Roger B.A. Klorese):
> 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.

    As mentioned already in news.groups, upon a search for the precise
    source, I found it instead in something my news administrator had
    sent me regarding rules for creating a newsgroup, from a person named
    Gene Spafford who evidently is a backbone administrator.  I therefore
    presume that this represents valid law until modified.  Allow me to
    reiterate that rather than follow precisely this algorithm, I will
    drop the YES vote of anyone who objects to being counted as a YES,
    thus freeing them to cast a NO if they so desire.  
 
       5) c) If you are trying to get an exisiting mailing list upgraded
             to a newsgroup, consider the current subscriber list as a
             set of "yes" votes of equal number, but only if they have
             already agreed that they want the list turned into a
             newsgroup.

    I am redirecting followups to news.groups for what I hope will be
    the VERY LAST TIME.


    Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
    comp.sw.components Mailing List administrator