Volunteer Votes: 2nd Call
Todd Michel McComb
In Message-ID <1131718...@isc.org>, I asked those people who
had volunteered to administer the Big-8 group list to send an ordered
list of other volunteers, to use to determine who is on the Preliminary
Board.
Most of you have sent your lists, but a few have not. I don't mean
to be overly impatient, but on the other hand, I don't think anyone
is enjoying letting this process drag. So for those others of you,
please let me know your plans: How much longer you need, you're
not planning to vote, etc. Don't make me hunt you down like a dog
(yes, that's a joke). I've acknowledged every vote I've received.
Yes, I know there are some difficulties with voting. I don't know
everyone on the list myself. I didn't know everyone on my local
ballot in last week's physical election either. That's just the
nature of things. Do your best. That's all you're going to be
able to do for subsequent decisions anyway.
If you need instructions or clarifications, see the previous
announcement in n.a.n, or write to me. Thank you.
Todd McComb for NAN Team
Howard S Shubs
mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
> Yes, I know there are some difficulties with voting. I don't know
> everyone on the list myself. I didn't know everyone on my local
> ballot in last week's physical election either. That's just the
> nature of things. Do your best. That's all you're going to be
> able to do for subsequent decisions anyway.
I think I'll vote myself off the list. This is boring beyond words.
Perhaps USENET would benefit from less structure, since we can't enforce
anything anyway.
--
A few minutes ago I attempted to give a flying fsck, but the best I
could do was to watch it skitter across the floor. (Anthony de Boer)
ba...@dmcom.net
McComb) wrote:
>
>In Message-ID <1131718...@isc.org>, I asked those people who
>had volunteered to administer the Big-8 group list to send an ordered
>list of other volunteers, to use to determine who is on the Preliminary
>Board.
Well I missed the call to voluntee, not sure I would want to, just
trying to determine if FAQ needs to be changed. On the face of it, it
does not yet appear to need any changes yet. There again I am not
trcieving many posts right now at all.
rec.games.frp.dnd is reported as having 0 posts and I know that gouup is
not dead.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Vito Kuhn
Hi Todd. Can you please give us an idea of when you expect to post the
election results? Much obliged.
VK
Steve Young
> Hi Todd. Can you please give us an idea of when you expect to post the
> election results? Much obliged.
*Vito*, it ain't *whine* before it's *time* :)
we got an *AUK* announcement
so what more do you want?
where will your vote be on it's new leader?
(you know I don't care much for that *trouble* *maker* *Sean!* :(
howboutchu?
:)x
Todd Michel McComb
Vito Kuhn <vito...@family-usenet.com> wrote:
>Can you please give us an idea of when you expect to post the
>election results?
Sometime after I receive the other votes and/or give up on them....
TMM
Todd Michel McComb
In Message-ID <1131718...@isc.org>, I asked those people who had
volunteered to administer the Big-8 group list to send an ordered list
of other volunteers, to use to determine who is on the Preliminary Board.
I have not yet heard from two people. Given that over 90% of the voters
have responded, and that time continues to tick away without a Big8
process, it is time to cut off voting, so that the votes can be processed.
Whatever I have received by 8:00AM Pacific Standard Time on Monday will
be the votes to be included. I have acknowledged all votes I've received
so far.
If the remaining candidates cannot vote before that time, they will not
automatically be excluded from the Preliminary Board. They simply won't
get to vote on this issue.
Adam H. Kerman
>I have not yet heard from two people. Given that over 90% of the voters
>have responded, and that time continues to tick away without a Big8
>process, it is time to cut off voting, so that the votes can be
>processed. Whatever I have received by 8:00AM Pacific Standard Time on
>Monday will be the votes to be included. I have acknowledged all votes
>I've received so far.
>If the remaining candidates cannot vote before that time, they will not
>automatically be excluded from the Preliminary Board. They simply won't
>get to vote on this issue.
I want to know if the producers of Big 8 Survivor will air the exit
interviews of the drowned volunteers so the rest of us can enjoy all the
nasty gossip, vicious attacks, and general bad behavior that didn't make
it to the airing. I don't want to wait for the DVD.
Henrietta K Thomas
Michel McComb) wrote:
I think you should give up sooner rather than later.
My two cents.
>TMM
--
Unless stated otherwise, the opinions expressed in
this article are mine alone, and do not represent
official policy of the us.* hierarchy. For information
about the us.* hierarchy, see the us.* website at
http://www.usenetnews.us;
Phred
Just a comment from an outsider which I couldn't resist saying:
There may be perfectly logical and acceptable reasons why these two
missing bods are still missing. On the other hand, it may be that
they can never get their act together in timely fashion.
If the latter, then what use would they be on the Board?
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
BowTie
I tend to agree with this. 72 hours for a short turn around, (as was
requested here). Possibly out to a week for normal business and a max of 10
days in any case. The minimum should be a courteous reply from the voter
stating an 'abstain' from voting. I'm curious whether the resignation(s)
announced earlier have been accepted? My feeling is that, absent special
circumstances, a volunteer should not be permitted to resign for say 60 ~ 120
days.
:)x
James Farrar
wrote:
>My feeling is that, absent special circumstances, a volunteer should
>not be permitted to resign for say 60 ~ 120 days.
Of course, a volunteer could always just disappear...
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
BowTie
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:22:44 -0500, "BowTie" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet>
> wrote:
>>My feeling is that, absent special circumstances, a volunteer should
>>not be permitted to resign for say 60 ~ 120 days.
> Of course, a volunteer could always just disappear...
Yes, that can happen, but I think anyone who holds up their hand should make a
'best effort' to contribute, at least for a short time. And then, allow for
orderly replacement. Barring unforeseen circumstances, respect for all
involved should place at least some minimal expectation of service.
:)x
BowTie
> Whatever I have received by 8:00AM Pacific Standard Time on Monday will
> be the votes to be included. I have acknowledged all votes I've received
> so far.
my question is,
are you still accepting replacement ballots?
if so, I'm *still* *lobbying!* <grin> :)x
Todd Michel McComb
BowTie <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
>Yes, that can happen, but I think anyone who holds up their hand
>should make a 'best effort' to contribute, at least for a short
>time. And then, allow for orderly replacement. Barring unforeseen
>circumstances, respect for all involved should place at least some
>minimal expectation of service.
I don't think waiting until Monday is killing any of us.
One thing about a largish Board is that, once it decides how to
operate, people who are more available can perform tasks that need
quick turnaround, and people who tend to be more deliberate can
weigh in on some of the meatier decisions. It takes all kinds for
a healthy decision-making process.
If anything, I'm concerned that I'm pushing things a little *too*
quickly, in terms of what might be reasonable for volunteers to
ponder. That's not because I don't recognize the value of patience,
and the risks of just going with whoever responds fastest, but
because of the selfish reason that I'd like to wrap this up and
move on.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Otaku
>
> I tend to agree with this. 72 hours for a short turn around, (as was
> requested here). Possibly out to a week for normal business and a max of 10
> days in any case. The minimum should be a courteous reply from the voter
> stating an 'abstain' from voting. I'm curious whether the resignation(s)
> announced earlier have been accepted? My feeling is that, absent special
> circumstances, a volunteer should not be permitted to resign for say 60 ~ 120
> days.
>
> :)x
>
Steve -
Right here is the reason I have a problem with you and your proposals.
You seem to, quite easily, slip into an authoritarian frame of mind. You
say a volunteer should not be *permitted* to resign - how in the Hell
are you going to stop them? These are _volunteers_ we're talking about.
You did the same thing with the "PUW" proposal - you kept wanting to
have enforcement of "timeouts" and "hanging offenses" - you don't seem
to grok the *fact* that there is no way you can enforce anything on
anyone on Usenet.
--
Š 2005 Otaku
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
you would not hear of that party again in our political
history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you
can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his
background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional
politician or business man from other areas. Their number is
negligible and they are stupid.
-- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower
November 8, 1954
Joe Bernstein
<mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
> and the risks of just going with whoever responds fastest,
Um. You say you're still waiting for two votes.
On the one hand, you were originally expecting twenty-six votes. There
have been two posted, explicit, withdrawals, far as I can see; if you've
taken those as indications not to expect votes, that leaves twenty-four.
There have been other people posting less explicit things that might
constitute withdrawals, and I don't know how you're handling those, nor
whether others have withdrawn without public posting, by e-mail. But
regardless, I don't see how you'll end up with fewer than sixteen or
more votes. In this context, refusing to count the votes of the *two*
remaining people isn't "going with whoever responds fastest", it's
"not including in one decision whoever responds slowest". In particular
given that your instructions told us not to vote for ourselves, not
counting those people's votes has no obvious effect on their own
candidacies.
On the *other* hand, how hard is voting? A bunch of people have
posted that their own approaches were vaguer than you specified.
Since there have been more than two such posts, it's clear that these
are not the voters you're still waiting for, so you're counting such
vague or incomplete votes. Flipside, you already have at least one
vote cast by copious reference to Google. I spent, as I told you
by e-mail, about nineteen hours researching and writing up my vote.
Now, I've boasted that I was able to recognise a bunch of the
candidates, and some voters will lack this ability; so call it
another eight hours, or twenty-seven total, for the most ignorant voter
to do the job by Google. (I researched a whole *bunch* of the people
I recognised, and this significantly changed my vote on two of them,
so no, it didn't take me nineteen hours to research just the few I
didn't know.) Well, it's been nine days since you set this exercise up.
So that's three hours per day. To do things the perfectionist way.
Even though you clearly don't require as much.
I concede that three hours per day is a lot, but I do not concede that
expecting people to act *in some way* within ten days is a lot.
Supposing this were a decision about a newsgroup proposal, it would be
way too generous. Granted this is a more complex decision, it still isn't
overly strict.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/> "She suited my mood, Sarah Mondleigh
did - it was like having a kitten in the room, like a vote for unreason."
<Glass Mountain>, Cynthia Voigt
Todd Michel McComb
Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>Um. You say you're still waiting for two votes.
>On the one hand, you were originally expecting twenty-six votes.
I think you're extending an awful lot of effort pondering something
that I'm wrapping up tomorrow.
Anyway, the "fastest" remark was a general one on this process, and
pertains more to the volunteering than the voting.
TMM
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
in <dlqpkq$1hg$1...@reader2.panix.com>:
> ... how hard is voting? ...
I think I spent about an hour on my ballot, including
asking some advice from someone whose judgment
I trust (he told me to make up my own mind).
I'm not too good with names, so I did a lot of
googling to raise my awareness of who was who.
YMMV.
Marty
BowTie
> BowTie wrote:
>> I tend to agree with this. 72 hours for a short turn around, (as was
>> requested here). Possibly out to a week for normal business and a max of 10
>> days in any case. The minimum should be a courteous reply from the voter
>> stating an 'abstain' from voting. I'm curious whether the resignation(s)
>> announced earlier have been accepted? My feeling is that, absent special
>> circumstances, a volunteer should not be permitted to resign for say 60 ~
>> 120 days.
> Steve -
>
> Right here is the reason I have a problem with you and your proposals. You
> seem to, quite easily, slip into an authoritarian frame of mind. You say a
> volunteer should not be *permitted* to resign - how in the Hell are you
> going to stop them? These are _volunteers_ we're talking about.
maybe a poor word choice, I would not accept their resignation for ninety
days ;)
> You did the same thing with the "PUW" proposal - you kept wanting to have
> enforcement of "timeouts" and "hanging offenses" - you don't seem to grok
> the *fact* that there is no way you can enforce anything on anyone on
> Usenet.
Well, first of all, here I was speaking of people offering to help.
My point is to the offerer; if you volunteer your effort, plan to expedite
some portion of your offer, rather than resign before anything happens. It
just doesn't compute in my head - volunteer and then in nearly the same breath
resign. Are these perhaps 'fair weather' boys who happen to discover not
everything will go their way?
(I better shut my mouth before I get in too deep ;(
Jonathan Kamens
>Well, first of all, here I was speaking of people offering to help.
>My point is to the offerer; if you volunteer your effort, plan to expedite
>some portion of your offer, rather than resign before anything happens. It
>just doesn't compute in my head - volunteer and then in nearly the same breath
>resign. Are these perhaps 'fair weather' boys who happen to discover not
>everything will go their way?
Hey, man, people make mistakes.
Earlier this year, I hired a guy who I believed (and still
believe) was qualified for the job. At the end of his first
day, he informed me that he wouldn't be coming back. After
one day on the job it had become clear to him that he had
made a poor decision, or at least so he thought. If that can
happen in a paid corporate setting, all the more so it can
happen in a volunteer setting.
People want to resign, they resign, and the other people
involved move on with their lives. Frankly, I'd rather have
someone resign early than after they've gotten involved and
people are expecting deliverables from them.
BowTie
> "BowTie" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> writes:
Yes, you're right, worst would be stuck in the middle.
I foresee the need for many volunteers, and I guess I was reminding to take
pause (for a moment), for some self assessment with the expected task,
before throwing up a hand. I certainly do appreciate all who volunteer and
expect we may be quite busy carrying out our appointments.
So I'm all done with this *hot* *potato* ;)x
Dr John Stockton
11:30:48, seen in news:news.groups, Todd Michel McComb
<mcc...@medieval.org> posted :
>Whatever I have received by 8:00AM Pacific Standard Time on Monday will
>be the votes to be included.
Since News is an international medium, you should be giving date/times
in GMT or UTC.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
Walter Roberson
Dr John Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>JRS: In article <11324286...@isc.org>, dated Sat, 19 Nov 2005
>11:30:48, seen in news:news.groups, Todd Michel McComb
><mcc...@medieval.org> posted :
>>Whatever I have received by 8:00AM Pacific Standard Time on Monday will
>>be the votes to be included.
>Since News is an international medium, you should be giving date/times
>in GMT or UTC.
Why? Was there even a single volunteer on the list who did not know
what Pacific Standard Time was and know how to look up the offset
between their timezone and PST ?
Was there a single person who was not on the voting list to whom
the precise timing made a difference?
If you were truly trying to be international, then the difference
between GMT and UTC should have been -important- to you.
--
Programming is what happens while you're busy making other plans.
David Bostwick
>11:30:48, seen in news:news.groups, Todd Michel McComb
><mcc...@medieval.org> posted :
>
>>Whatever I have received by 8:00AM Pacific Standard Time on Monday will
>>be the votes to be included.
>
>Since News is an international medium, you should be giving date/times
>in GMT or UTC.
>
Some of us have the advantage of living in other time zones. We can calculate
the difference between those times and GMT/UTC. We can even correct for
Daylight Saving Time when needed. In spite of my being a chauvinistic
American, I can even figure out British Summer Time. Since your zone is
+0000, you've never had to exercise that part of your brain. More's the pity.
I repeat an unanswered question: Do you do anything besides carp?
Dr John Stockton
Nov 2005 23:07:17, seen in news:news.groups, Walter Roberson
<robe...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> posted :
>In article <0KDRuaEl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>,
>Dr John Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>JRS: In article <11324286...@isc.org>, dated Sat, 19 Nov 2005
>>11:30:48, seen in news:news.groups, Todd Michel McComb
>><mcc...@medieval.org> posted :
>
>>>Whatever I have received by 8:00AM Pacific Standard Time on Monday will
>>>be the votes to be included.
>
>>Since News is an international medium, you should be giving date/times
>>in GMT or UTC.
>
>Why? Was there even a single volunteer on the list who did not know
>what Pacific Standard Time was and know how to look up the offset
>between their timezone and PST ?
How should I know, and why should they have to bother? far more
sensible to use the international standard of time agreed in Washington
in 1884. That way, no-one has to bother to do any more than to know how
their own time relates to GMT; although one does then have to assume
that Todd can get it right - I see that a recent press release is
reported as including "On Friday, November 25 at 1 p.m. (PDT)", so
evidently West-Coasters are not necessarily chronologically trustworthy.
>Was there a single person who was not on the voting list to whom
>the precise timing made a difference?
Who knows? But the contrary should not have been assumed.
>If you were truly trying to be international, then the difference
>between GMT and UTC should have been -important- to you.
It is known to me; Todd should have chosen one or the other - and made
sure that his timing was reasonably accurate, too.
But as it is impossible to control or predict the delivery time of mail
to within nine-tenths of a second, it really does not matter which was
chosen, even to someone trying to be the last to get a valid response
in. Either would be satisfactory.