NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/news/groups/24776

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 1.7 KB

Xref: sparky news.groups:24776 news.admin.misc:869
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!news
From: [e-mail] (Sridhar Venkataraman )
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:15:58 GMT
Lines: 25

[e-mail] (Ed McGuire) writes:
)[e-mail] (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
)
)   A rationale like that is certainly a good thing to have, but it seems to
)   me that any group proposal that doesn't have enough interest in it isn't
)   going to have enough votes to pass anyway.  Reader interest is what the
)   vote is designed to measure, after all.
)
)Remember that I'm one of the folks who think that the vote isn't doing
)a good job of this (because of the obsolete 100+ rule).  Seems to me
)that group proposals are passing even though there isn't enough
)interest to justify their existence.

Can u please explain why the 100+ rule is obsolete? I can give you
atleast 2 examples for groups which passed by wafer thin margins and
are far healthier than groups which passed by 400+ votes. IMO, the
100+ rule is still doing a wonderful job of what it is meant for.
Judging about a group is not fair unless the performance of the group
after the vote is taken into account.

)Ed McGuire

Sridhar.
--
Sridhar Venkataraman            [e-mail]