2nd RFD: rec.music.experimental
ru.ig...@usask.ca
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.music.experimental
This is a nitpick, but...
>Several Deja Usenet discussion power searches for the two month period of
>August 15, 2000 - October 15, 2000 were conducted, with a total average
>result of 49.3 on-topic posts per day. It should be noted that
>experimental music is not always referred to directly as "experimental"
>when discussing specific artists, therefore the actual average of on-topic
>posts may be greater than 49.3 posts per day.
>forum: *music*
>keyword: "experimental"
>results: 1542 matches
>average: 25.7 posts per day
>forum: *music*
>keyword: "free jazz"
>results: 122 matches
>average: 2 posts per day
You shouldn't be adding half of what you have below this.
In particular, hits on keyword "experimental" in
r.m.classical.contemporary, r.m.progressive, r.music.industrial
overlap with your counts in forum *music*. It doesn't pull your
total below 40, but someone may construe this as dishonesty on
the proponents part and vote based on that.
>forum: rec.music.classical.contemporary
>keyword: "experimental"
>results: 20 matches
>average: .3 posts per day
>forum: rec.music.progressive
>keyword: "experimental"
>results: 123 matches
>average: 2 post per day
>forum: rec.music.industrial
>keyword: "experimental"
>results: 147 matches
>average: 2.5 posts per day
The stuff below is fine.
>forum: rec.music.industrial
>keyword: "noise"
>results: 666 matches
>average: 11.1 posts per day
>forum: alt.noise
>keyword: "experimental"
>results: 109 matches
>average: 1.8 posts per day
>forum: alt.noise
>keyword: "noise"
>results: 355 matches
>average: 5.9 posts per day
ru
Klaas
<ma...@neosoft.com> wrote in message news:9766657...@isc.org...
> And the last reason why you should vote yes for the creation of
> rec.music.experimental: Where would you look for experimental music
in the
> record store (on-line or not) if there wasn't an experimental
section, and
> where would you discuss experimental music on Usenet if there wasn't
a
> newsgroup called rec.music.experimental?
In rec.music, or any/all of the groups you mention above.
Cut that paragraph out, as the logic is extremely weak (it could
equally well be used to justify misc.my-navel-fluff, for instance).
-Mike
Vincent Kargatis
>
> rec.music.experimental will create a Usenet forum for the discussion
of
> international experimental music as well as combine and unite
discussion of
> experimental music found in several music newsgroups. The subject of
> experimental music is often off-topic in existing newsgroups where it
is
> discussed because there is currently no single forum existing in the
Big
> Eight hierarchy to discuss matters related to experimental music.
> rec.music.experimental will offer a single location and source
devoted to
> the discussion of experimental music, instruments and concepts.
You might want to also point out that many experimental music listeners
are interested in experimental music of multiple genres, to further
rationalize why it should be split out from their genre home groups (a
separate point from your off-topic note above).
> And the last reason why you should vote yes for the creation of
> rec.music.experimental: Where would you look for experimental music
in the
> record store (on-line or not) if there wasn't an experimental
section, and
> where would you discuss experimental music on Usenet if there wasn't a
> newsgroup called rec.music.experimental?
Agreed, to dump this argument.
> -- Blues/Jazz (Ornette Coleman, John Coltrane, Sun Ra, Wm Parker,
Derek
> Bailey, Capt. Beefheart)
I'd say "blues/jazz/free improvisation", but it's not that important.
I wouldn't mind seeing an "electronica" bullet, with examples like
Autechre, Oval, Farmers Manual, Rehberg & Bauer, etc. They don't fit
in too nicely with the other bullets, unless you include them
in 'noise', which, by the examples, seems to imply rather heavy
and "violent" sounds, which the aforementioned are not.
> This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> alt.music.techno, alt.noise, rec.music.ambient,
> rec.music.classical.contemporary, rec.music.industrial,
> rec.music.makers.jazz, rec.music.progressive
As experimental jazz/improv is included in the charter, this should
also go to rec.music.bluenote, the chief jazz discussion group.
Vincent Kargatis
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Neil Crellin
unmoderated group rec.music.experimental
This CFV is to be distributed only by the votetaker. It is not to be
posted to newsgroups, or mailed to mailing lists or individuals, except by
the votetaker. Ballots or CFVs provided by anyone else will be invalid.
Newsgroups line:
rec.music.experimental For the discussion of experimental music.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 6 Mar 2001.
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: eyedunno <e...@usa.com>
Votetaker: Neil Crellin <ne...@wallaby.cc>
RATIONALE: rec.music.experimental
rec.music.experimental will create a Usenet forum for the discussion of
international experimental music as well as combine and unite discussion of
experimental music found in several music newsgroups. The subject of
experimental music is often off-topic in existing newsgroups where it is
discussed because there is currently no single forum existing in the Big
Eight hierarchy to discuss matters related to experimental music.
rec.music.experimental will offer a single location and source devoted to
the discussion of experimental music, instruments and concepts.
Adequate interest and traffic for rec.music.experimental is suggested by
the following information. There are at least 300 informed supporters
prepared to vote *YES* in the CFV election for the creation of
rec.music.experimental. These supporters were gathered on various music
newsgroups such as alt.music.sonic-youth, alt.music.techno, alt.noise,
rec.music.ambient, rec.music.classical.contemporary, rec.music.hip-hop,
rec.music.industrial, rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz, rec.music.progressive,
and well established mailing lists such as 11111, c93, fluxlist, freenoise,
minimalism, noise, nww, oddmusic, thewire, tmonk and ZBC_NCP. Each
individual supporter suggested that they would be willing to vote *YES* in
an email election for the creation of a newsgroup on Usenet named
rec.music.experimental for the purposes outlined in the r.m.e. charter.
Several Deja Usenet discussion power searches for the two month period of
August 15, 2000 - October 15, 2000 were conducted, with a total average
result of 49.3 on-topic posts per day. It should be noted that
experimental music is not always referred to directly as "experimental"
when discussing specific artists, therefore the actual average of on-topic
posts may be greater than 49.3 posts per day.
forum: *music*
keyword: "experimental"
results: 1542 matches
average: 25.7 posts per day
forum: *music*
keyword: "free jazz"
results: 122 matches
average: 2 posts per day
forum: rec.music.classical.contemporary
keyword: "experimental"
results: 20 matches
average: .3 posts per day
forum: rec.music.progressive
keyword: "experimental"
results: 123 matches
average: 2 post per day
forum: rec.music.industrial
keyword: "experimental"
results: 147 matches
average: 2.5 posts per day
forum: rec.music.industrial
keyword: "noise"
results: 666 matches
average: 11.1 posts per day
forum: alt.noise
keyword: "experimental"
results: 109 matches
average: 1.8 posts per day
forum: alt.noise
keyword: "noise"
results: 355 matches
average: 5.9 posts per day
And the last reason why you should vote yes for the creation of
rec.music.experimental: Where would you look for experimental music in the
record store (on-line or not) if there wasn't an experimental section, and
where would you discuss experimental music on Usenet if there wasn't a
newsgroup called rec.music.experimental?
CHARTER: rec.music.experimental
rec.music.experimental is an unmoderated forum for the discussion of sound
works contained within the international experimental philosophy of music.
For the purposes of this newsgroup, experimental music should generally be
regarded as that which:
a) Challenges the boundaries of the various traditions in which music is
rooted.
b) Establishes a new or novel approach to creating sounds which cannot be
comfortably categorized in any of the standard genres.
c) Or follows in the traditions of experimental music itself.
Experimental music is a profound music movement with roots dating back to
the early 20th Century (and earlier in theory), occasionally with ties to
art group movements and scientific research. It is essentially a
"non-genre genre", which resists the confines of strict definitions.
Experimental music is more an attitude toward music or perception of sounds
and music/sound concepts, whether creating or listening, than it is
anything specific about song structure or sound style. Another important
facet of experimental music is the use of non-traditional instruments and
the invention of newfangled contraptions designed to create sound.
However, an approximate working definition of experimental music is: Audio
work which explores music traditions and discovers new perceptions of sound
theories. This could refer simply to free jazz, harsh noise,
electroacoustics or musique concrete, or less travelled ideas, such as
symphonic improvisations played by trained monkeys, pop hits played with a
typewriter and doorbell, industrial bluegrass turntablism, freestyle hip
hop rapped backwards, jet engines with a ukulele melody and effected goat
vocals, the sound of paint drying, or an infinite number of serious and/or
sarcastic combinations and interpretations of all available sound sources
in the known universe. Experimentalists consider all perceptible sound to
be music, and as such are not limited by known music conventions when
creating their compositions.
Thus, experimental music is characteristically an area that draws together
music from a variety of music genres and sociocultural contexts. A partial
and incomplete listing of representative experimental artists and forms
include:
-- Blues/Jazz (Ornette Coleman, John Coltrane, Sun Ra, Wm Parker, Derek
Bailey, Capt. Beefheart)
-- Classical/Concrete (Stockhausen, Cage, Xenakis, Satie, Pierre Henry)
-- Minimalism/Ambient (LeMonte Young, Terry Riley, Philip Glass,
Charlemagne Palestine, Pauline Oliveros)
-- Rock/Punk (Throbbing Gristle, Nurse With Wound, early Butthole Surfers,
some Sonic Youth)
-- Noise/Scum (Merzbow, Whitehouse, Haters, Muslimgauze, Boredoms, Diamond
Shamrock)
-- Plunderphonics/Found Sound (John Oswald, Negativland, Evolution Control
Committee, Lucas)
-- Hip-hop/Techno (X-ecutioners, QBert, Peanut Butter Wolf, Gunter, Atari
Teenage Riot)
-- Folk/Country (Eugene Chadbourne, Mazzacane Connors, John Fahey)
-- Instrument Builders (Harry Partch, Ellen Fullman, Donald Buchla, Harry
Bertoia, Luigi Russolo, Survival Research Laboratories)
-- Art Movements (Avant Garde, Futurism, Dada, Surrealism, Fluxus, Anti-Art)
r.m.e. exists to facilitate discussions concerning these experimental
traditions and the intriguing common space shared by boundary-challengers
>From these backgrounds. Any discussion of experimental music is welcome,
including discussions about techniques and philosophies of creating and
listening, reviews of current and past releases, playlists, concert
listings and news. Introspective and critical discussion on topics such as
"what makes a particular artist experimental?" is encouraged.
Commercial postings directly related to the topic of experimental music are
welcome only if done so occasionally and sparingly (no more than once per
month). Off-topic (OT) posts will be tolerated only when tangentially
related to experimental music (such as art/graffiti, video/film,
science/technology), but should be kept to a minimum. Binaries are
prohibited, except for PGP signatures and similar small binaries. If you
have photos or sounds you wish to share with the group, please provide a
link.
The rec.music.experimental charter was created and compiled with material
written by the group's original proponent, Brent Bruni Comiskey (eyedunno),
and Daniel Bodah, with additional text by Colonel Panic, James Whitehead,
Todd McComb and others.
November 1, 2000
END CHARTER.
IMPORTANT VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES: READ THIS BEFORE VOTING
The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest in
reading the proposed newsgroup, and soliciting votes from uninterested
parties defeats this purpose. Do *not* distribute this CFV; instead,
direct people to the official CFV as posted to news.announce.newgroups.
Distributing specific voting instructions or pre-marked copies of
this CFV is considered vote fraud.
This is a public vote: All email addresses, names and votes will be
listed in the final RESULT post. The name used may be either a real
name or an established Usenet handle.
At most one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate
votes will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote.
Voters must mail their ballots directly to the votetaker. Anonymous,
forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid, nor are votes mailed from
WWW/HTML/CGI forms (which should not exist). Votes from nonexistent
accounts or with munged addresses are invalid and will not be counted.
Please direct any questions to the votetaker at <ne...@wallaby.cc>
HOW TO VOTE:
Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before and after
the "BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and "END OF BALLOT" lines. Don't worry about
the spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your
reply inserts. Please, DO NOT send the entire CFV back to me!
Fill in the ballot as shown below. Please provide your real name
(or established Usenet handle) and indicate your desired vote in the
appropriate locations inside the ballot.
Examples of how to properly indicate your vote:
[ YES ] example.yes.vote
[ NO ] example.no.vote
[ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
[ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
DO NOT modify, alter or delete any information in this ballot!
If you do, the voting software will probably reject your ballot.
When finished, MAIL the ballot to: < vot...@uvv.wallaby.cc >
Just "replying" to this message should work, but check the "To:" line.
If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three
days contact the votetaker about the problem. You are responsible
for reading your ack and making sure your vote is registered correctly.
If these instructions are unclear, please consult the Introduction to
Usenet Voting or the Usenet Voting FAQ at http://www.stanford.edu/~neilc/uvv.
======== BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete everything before this line =======
.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| 1ST CALL FOR VOTES: rec.music.experimental
| Official Usenet Voting Ballot <RME-0001> (Do not remove this line!)
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Please provide your real name, or your vote may be rejected. Established
| Usenet handles are also acceptable. Place ONLY your name (ie. do NOT
| include your e-mail address or any other information; ONLY your name)
| after the colon on the following line:
Voter name:
| Insert YES, NO, ABSTAIN, or CANCEL inside the brackets for each
| newsgroup listed below (do not delete the newsgroup name):
Your Vote Newsgroup
--------- -----------------------------------------------------------
[ ] rec.music.experimental
======== END OF BALLOT: Delete everything after this line ==============
POINTERS
Pointers regarding this CFV may be mailed to the following mailing lists:
11...@egroups.com
c...@egroups.com
free...@egroups.com
minim...@egroups.com
no...@egroups.com
n...@egroups.com
the...@egroups.com
tm...@egroups.com
ZPC...@egroups.com
This CFV was created with uvpq 1.0 (Feb 6 1999).
PQ datestamp: 980322
--
Voting address: vot...@uvv.wallaby.cc
Neil Crellin
unmoderated group rec.music.experimental
This CFV is to be distributed only by the votetaker. It is not to be
posted to newsgroups, or mailed to mailing lists or individuals, except by
the votetaker. Ballots or CFVs provided by anyone else will be invalid.
Newsgroups line:
rec.music.experimental For the discussion of experimental music.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 6 Mar 2001.
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: eyedunno <e...@usa.com>
Votetaker: Neil Crellin <ne...@wallaby.cc>
VOTETAKER NOTE **** YOU MAY WANT TO READ THIS ****
Since the 1st CFV was posted, several additional distributions of CFV
pointers have been brought to the attention of the votetaker. Where
possible, these have been added to the DISTRIBUTION disclosure below.
Some of these are from the proponent, some are from an interested third
party, but the one of particular irregularity to note consists of a
private list of email addresses collected by the proponent of individuals
he understood wanted to vote in favor of the group. It is the proponents
position that this list of over 100 addresses is not a mailing list, and
that since he knows how they intend to vote that soliciting their votes
does not constitute campaigning. I consider such a distribution to need
to be at least disclosed, and am doing so via this mechanism. The
proponent has indicated a willingness to provide this list to the
votetaker. Special arrangements will be made to contact them to verify the
intent of their vote. The decision to proceed in this manner rather than
cancel the vote has been made in consultation with the UVV, group-advice,
and the n.a.n. moderator, and in no way reduces anyones right to challenge
the RESULT based on the Guidelines at the appropriate time.
RATIONALE: rec.music.experimental
CHARTER: rec.music.experimental
from these backgrounds. Any discussion of experimental music is welcome,
November 1, 2000
END CHARTER.
HOW TO VOTE:
| 2ND CALL FOR VOTES: rec.music.experimental
| Official Usenet Voting Ballot <RME-0002> (Do not remove this line!)
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Please provide your real name, or your vote may be rejected. Established
| Usenet handles are also acceptable. Place ONLY your name (ie. do NOT
| include your e-mail address or any other information; ONLY your name)
| after the colon on the following line:
Voter name:
| Insert YES, NO, ABSTAIN, or CANCEL inside the brackets for each
| newsgroup listed below (do not delete the newsgroup name):
Your Vote Newsgroup
--------- -----------------------------------------------------------
[ ] rec.music.experimental
======== END OF BALLOT: Delete everything after this line ==============
POINTERS
Pointers regarding this CFV may be mailed to the following mailing lists:
11...@egroups.com
c...@egroups.com
free...@egroups.com
minim...@egroups.com
no...@egroups.com
n...@egroups.com
the...@egroups.com
tm...@egroups.com
ZPC...@egroups.com
and to the newsgroup:
rec.music.bluenote
and to the web discussion board at:
AND to a distribution list of over 100 friends of the proponent, who were
all asked to "Please vote *YES*" and confirm to the proponent that their
votes had been cast.
rec.music.experimental Bounce List - Please contact me about your vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atro.Tos...@iki.fi.invalid Atro Tossavainen
n...@leicester.ac.uk Andrew Norman
Neil Crellin
unmoderated group rec.music.experimental passes 219:17
There were 219 YES votes and 17 NO votes, for a total of 236 valid
votes. There were 3 abstentions and 7 invalid ballots.
For a group to pass, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid
(YES and NO) votes. There must also be at least 100 more YES votes
than NO votes.
A five day discussion period follows this announcement. If no
serious allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the
moderator of news.announce.newgroups will create the group shortly
thereafter.
Newsgroups line:
rec.music.experimental For the discussion of experimental music.
The voting period closed at 23:59:59 UTC, 6 Mar 2001.
This vote was conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: eyedunno <e...@usa.com>
Votetaker: Neil Crellin <ne...@wallaby.cc>
VOTETAKER REMARKS
As noted in the 2nd CFV notes, a CFV pointer was distributed by the
proponent to a private list of over 100 email addresses that had been
collected. That list was provided to the votetaker by the proponent, and
in fact contained over 300 addresses. I have reviewed the list of
addresses and compared it against the addresses that voted. It is my
confident opinion that only approximately 75 of the addresses that voted
correspond to individuals on the contact list, based on analysis of the
names and addresses. My original intention was to contact these voters
and ensure that they fully understood the nature of the vote and truly
wished to read or participate in the group if created. Given the numbers,
I do not consider that to be necessary. Even if there were reasons to
disqualify all their votes (just for sake of the argument), the outcome of
the vote would still be that the vote would pass and the group would be
created.
RATIONALE: rec.music.experimental
CHARTER: rec.music.experimental
November 1, 2000
END CHARTER.
rec.music.experimental Final Voter list
NOTE: This is not [to be used as] a mailing list. The email addresses
are posted only to help verify the interest poll. Thank you.
Voted YES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
elric [at] zip.com.au Matthew Spong
toivo [at] ucs.uwa.edu.au Toivo Pedaste
jhicks [at] iinet.net.au Jeremy Hicks
blair [at] netspace.net.au Blair Rideout
sen [at] chello.be Sen
ds525 [at] freenet.carleton.ca sundar subramanian
nymh [at] freenet.carleton.ca nymh
syl [at] alcor.concordia.ca Sylvain Robitaille
miles [at] magma.ca Michael Iles
cjsfmusc [at] sfu.ca Ed Blake
eklektik [at] sympatico.ca Alain Gauthier
dan.given [at] ualberta.ca Dan Given
pm.carey [at] utoronto.ca Patrick Carey
mtippett [at] uvic.ca Murray Tippett
bidoche [at] bluewin.ch Bidoche Musique (Joe Fleury)
stephane.vuilleumier [at] micro.biol.ethz.ch Stephane Vuilleumier
abardelli [at] freesurf.ch Andrea BARDELLI DANIELI
john [at] pleiades.8m.com John P Darcy
Anatole40 [at] aol.com James Lindbloom
AnthemT4E [at] aol.com Keith Dusoe
Aphonik [at] aol.com Eric Witz
Brennansf [at] aol.com Gerald E. Brennan
Clusone [at] aol.com Susan Fox
CuneiWay [at] aol.com Steve Feigenbaum
Dgasque [at] aol.com David A. Gasque
dtohir [at] aol.com DTohir
GoddardV [at] aol.com John Kasiewicz
Haltapes1 [at] aol.com Hal McGee
HarryEsq [at] aol.com
IFeelPhree [at] aol.com Richard Gamble
JonAbbey2 [at] aol.com Jon Abbey
MHMartin [at] aol.com Matthew H. Martin
microtonez [at] aol.com David Beardsley
MpL7734 [at] aol.com M.P.Lockwood
Oakiedog [at] aol.com David Katznelson
PJRobertz [at] aol.com Paul Robertz
thamiltn [at] aol.com Tom Hamilton
TheDreamUnit [at] aol.com Veni Vidi Exii
rshapiro [at] bbn.com R Shapiro
dave_barker [at] bigpond.com Dave Barker
mmrosa [at] bigpond.com Michal Rosa
porjes [at] bigpond.com Peter Stephenson
thomas.perrotin [at] americas.bnpparibas.com thomas perrotin
legard [at] btinternet.com Phil legard
philip.j.page [at] btinternet.com Philip Page
rhysdavies [at] btinternet.com Rhys Davies
fallen [at] ciaccess.com Jai Dietrich
matti [at] devo.com Matti Kohler-Busch
klaus [at] dnai.com Stephan Heilmayr
julesd [at] erols.com Jules Dubois
herb [at] eskimo.com Herb Levy
bcolflesh [at] eudoramail.com Brent Colflesh
altmartinuk [at] excite.com Martin Paul
deercrk [at] excite.com Bryan Herdman
roelofs [at] f2s.com Mees Roelofs
sergio.luque [at] flashmail.com Sergio Luque
skot [at] hevanet.com SKot Kirkwood
lounger [at] home.com Kilgore Trout
sparrowhawk1 [at] home.com ANTHONY NARDI
adamchao618 [at] hotmail.com adam j. le conte
amenouveau [at] hotmail.com DAVID SCHMITZ
nihilum33 [at] hotmail.com Dan Keller
ooeeoo [at] hotmail.com Daniel McKernan
pixiepuck [at] hotmail.com Paul Wroth
solarlodge6 [at] hotmail.com Michael O'Connor
whovines [at] hotmail.com Jon Wiens
yiftissa [at] hotmail.com Yiftissa
elodahl [at] ibsys.com Eric Lodahl
justint [at] icolorado.com Justin Tomlinson
duolagem [at] icqmail.com Nathan Espen
donwa [at] icu.com DON SIGAL
emoore [at] idiominc.com Eli K. Moore
phalen180 [at] infin8ty.com phalen180
nirav [at] ink19.com Nirav Soni
trioux [at] interbaun.com Tony Rioux
ndallen [at] interlog.com Nigel Allen
sonitus7 [at] juno.com Matthew St-Germain
lastsigh [at] lastsigh.com Kim Ann
joejanecek [at] loop.com Joe Janecek
bathory [at] maltedmedia.com Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
maurice [at] mauricerickard.com Maurice Rickard
madcow [at] milkhouse.com
ign [at] mindspring.com Gene Sweeney
mattu [at] mindspring.com Matt Urban
stevedrury [at] mindspring.com Stephen Drury
cmuberti [at] monmouth.com cmuberti
tmstoudt [at] my-deja.com Tom Stoudt
maha [at] neosoft.com Brent Bruni Comiskey
salazar [at] ix.netcom.com Rick Salazar
xibalba [at] no-fi.com Chris Barrus
jeff [at] noisician.com Jeff Wrench
sasha [at] noizguild.com NoizGuild
fox [at] ntlworld.com fox
random99 [at] ntlworld.com random99
littletoad [at] playful.com little toad
ecc [at] pobox.com The Evolution Control Committee
wolfram [at] poland.com Dominik Kowalczyk
n7nt [at] primenet.com Richard Kendrick
bcourter [at] ptc.com Blake Courter
edwardp [at] rcn.com Edward P. Dittmer
maenad [at] refinedclinicalresearch.com maenad
dymaxia [at] ripco.com Kerry Keane
tubaman [at] rocketmail.com Jerold Korinek
mayday-imr [at] houston.rr.com
pozuga [at] houston.rr.com Carlos Pozo
mraley [at] nc.rr.com Morgan Raley
bzditch [at] sprynet.com John A. Hajeski
Jonathan.Lefler [at] starwoodhotels.com Jonathan Lefler
granvold [at] futhark.Eng.Sun.COM Tom Granvold
hood [at] eng.sun.com Mark Hood
pan [at] syix.com Pan
benat2 [at] tamaqua.com Brett Banditelli
ville.paukkonen [at] tecnomen.com Ville Paukkonen
absinthe [at] teleport.com Colonel Panic
jamesk [at] telisphere.com James Kirchmer
dgromfin [at] telocity.com Danny Gromfin
bob [at] threestrands.com Bob
Troy [at] tipjar.com Troy Hewitt
davidsen [at] tmr.com bill davidsen
twakeford [at] tursa.com Tony Wakeford
Kudra [at] valley2.valleyint.com Troy Date
h [at] weirdness.com H. Figurine
aleph [at] world.com Jose M. daLuz
bradleybee [at] yahoo.com Brad Emrich
incompleteness [at] yahoo.com Robb C
midibeast [at] yahoo.com Tony Roney
mjnja [at] yahoo.com minya
rostasi [at] yahoo.com ROD STASICK
spam2devnull [at] yahoo.com Andrew Wing
starshipwreck [at] yahoo.com starshipwreck
laughing [at] yourpain.com Dayv!
michaelz [at] zoka.com Michael Zelner
annibale [at] dense.de Annibale Picicci
cgarbers [at] gmx.de Christoph Garbers
Ekkehard.Uthke [at] gmx.de Ekkehard Uthke
scheyhing [at] snafu.de Dieter Scheyhing
leo [at] tmt.de Andre Leopold
Wolfram.Priess [at] rz.uni-jena.de Wolfram Priess
schneide [at] phil.uni-passau.de Karl-Michael Schneider
_Locke_ [at] web.de Locke
bouvin [at] daimi.au.dk Niels Olof Bouvin
fungus [at] OCF.Berkeley.EDU Hank Fung
sth [at] andrew.cmu.edu Steve Hayashi
reed [at] vision.eri.harvard.edu Reed Hedges
jacobson [at] frodo.mgh.harvard.edu Nils Jacobson
kortbein [at] iastate.edu Josh
abpurvis [at] alumni.princeton.edu Arthur Purvis
harv23 [at] Stanford.EDU Harvey Thornburg
jcturner [at] mail.ucf.edu Jesse Turner
twomblyk [at] Glue.umd.edu Kristian Mark Twombly
jeff [at] rufinus.cs.widener.edu J Rufinus
mjgoins [at] students.wisc.edu Matthew J. Goins
wwschonb [at] artsci.wustl.edu Whit Schonbein
Atro.Tossavainen [at] iki.fi Atro Tossavainen
juskars [at] cc.jyu.fi Jussi Karsikas
jari.kaukua [at] kvs.fi Jari Kaukua
boubaker [at] cena.fr heddy Boubaker
oger [at] worldnet.fr OGER
lartis [at] ath.forthnet.gr Vincent Kargatis
harvel [at] tarski.2y.net Michael Slone
omz23 [at] airmail.net Joel Zoch
greycube [at] artserve.net justin jaeckle
lankina [at] att.net Alan Lankin
rudy.carrera [at] worldnet.att.net Rudy A Carrera
setai [at] worldnet.att.net Timothy Gross
spuhl [at] charter.net Scott Puhl
antaeus66 [at] earthlink.net leonard crandall
bonarue [at] earthlink.net Greg Hallock
byeya [at] earthlink.net John G. Thomas
eso200 [at] earthlink.net Eric Ong
mlev [at] earthlink.net Marc Levinthal
ruinrocks [at] earthlink.net Tom Adams
sdavmor [at] earthlink.net Steven Davies-Morris
elleinad [at] elleinad.net elleinad
brucelewis [at] mediaone.net
dgunning [at] mediaone.net Donald Gunning
phatmike [at] apathy.ne.mediaone.net phat mike
sitcom [at] mediaone.net jeremy
tcm [at] nababs.net Timo Metzemakers
alterhead [at] nacs.net Brian Alter
shrao [at] nyx.net Shrisha Rao
amanita [at] optonline.net Joseph Benzola
donkeyrhubarb [at] sega.net
ecook [at] simulated.net Eric Cook
seth [at] tisue.net Seth Tisue
santavenecia [at] uswest.net Mark Jung
bb10k [at] velocity.net Rick Lopez
arne [at] webon.net Arne_L?ining
liberte [at] bart.nl Libertus
boud [at] rempt.xs4all.nl Boudewijn Rempt
irina [at] rempt.xs4all.nl Irina Rempt
kjellj [at] nfi.no Kjell R. Jenssen
faulds [at] es.co.nz Stuart Brodie Faulds
info [at] celebrityseries.org Jack Wright
dana [at] codding.org Dana Codding
umquam [at] unitee.dyndns.org Chris Fancsy
witlox [at] freeshell.org Bob Witlox
glennf [at] grfn.org Glenn Freeman
paradive [at] industrial.org paradive
nkoch [at] northnet.org Nathan Koch
dgarcia [at] silentnoise.org Daniel Garcia/Sol3
fsb [at] thefsb.org Thomas Worster
grindex [at] thegatesofhell.org pUkeRz
mefju [at] venus.ci.uw.edu.pl Maciej Ostaszewski
zimnyzenon [at] interia.pl Zenobiusz Zimny
l43384 [at] alfa.ist.utl.pt Ricardo Reis
zayats [at] sib3.ru Ilya S. Ivanov
fhaevirr [at] hem.passagen.se Ingmar Wennerberg
justin [at] DoCS.UU.SE Justin Pearson
Simon.Licen [at] guest.arnes.si Simon Licen
gtp10 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk Geoff Parks
s.e.nte [at] keele.ac.uk Sol Nte
jliat [at] jliat.demon.co.uk James Whitehead
alfred [at] ellaguru.freeserve.co.uk Alfred Armstrong
gask [at] findo.freeserve.co.uk GASK
andrew [at] pnoom.freeserve.co.uk Andrew Cox
dan [at] state51.co.uk daniel hill
progmap [at] yahoo.co.uk ProgMAP
andy.roberts [at] zetnet.co.uk Andy Roberts
Voted NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sj_evans21 [at] yahoo.com.au Sydney James Evans
yan [at] storm.ca Yves Bellefeuille
LMcmil2586 [at] aol.com Jeremy McMillan
kimdv [at] best.com Kim DeVaughn
stainles [at] bga.com Dwight Brown
amanda_dusting [at] hotmail.com Amanda Jane Dusting
gprrspw [at] mindspring.com G.P. Ryan
ra3035 [at] email.sps.mot.com Michael Porter (of GAMBIT)
fran_keeling [at] my-deja.com Frances Margan Keeling
naddy [at] mips.inka.de Christian Weisgerber
amcmicha [at] Princeton.EDU Andrew McMichael
meg [at] Steam.Stanford.EDU meg worley
rick [at] bcm.tmc.edu Richard Miller
thor [at] anta.net Thor Kottelin
vote-rec.music.experimental [at] newton.digitalspace.net Philip Newton
votefraud [at] pyrophore.ogoense.net UVV
af.news [at] etrigan.org Alan Fleming
Abstained
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mcclenon [at] erols.com Bob McClenon
aahz [at] pobox.com Aahz
mmontcha [at] OregonVOS.net Matthew Montchalin
Invalid votes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
phil.turnbull [at] acnielsen.com.au philT
! Voted twice, both votes disallowed
admin [at] bbsdaze.com Joshua Warren
! Ineligible address
pturnbul [at] bigpond.com Phil Turnbull
! Voted twice, both votes disallowed
markvj [at] spammenothotmail.com M. Jung
! Invalid address: votetaker demunging flexibility revoked by whiners
dbryce [at] texplas.com Doug Bryce
! No vote statement in message
minorseventhSPAMBLOCK [at] earthlink.net Jim Kroger
! Invalid address: votetaker demunging flexibility revoked by whiners
nja [at] leicester.ac.uk Andrew Norman
! Undeliverable address: 550 rejected: administrative prohibition
--
Neil Crellin, UVV <ne...@wallaby.cc>
Voltair
>votetaker demunging flexibility revoked by whiners
???????????
demunging?
WTF?
Jon Skeet
My guess is that it means: "Votetakers aren't allowed to reconstruct
spam-blocked addresses"
--
Jon Skeet - sk...@pobox.com
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
Russ Allbery
> ???????????
> demunging?
> WTF?
Converting spam-blocked addresses into something that can receive the
voting ack so that the vote can actually be counted. After a big stink
about this a few votes ago, the general consensus seemed to be that we
were best off just refusing to ever do this at all, even if it was
trivially obvious what the e-mail address was *meant* to be, in the name
of consistency.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Thomas Galloway
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Converting spam-blocked addresses into something that can receive the
>voting ack so that the vote can actually be counted. After a big stink
>about this a few votes ago, the general consensus seemed to be that we
>were best off just refusing to ever do this at all, even if it was
>trivially obvious what the e-mail address was *meant* to be, in the name
>of consistency.
Think of it as similar to the Florida hanging chads and such. There had to
be a decision of what level to count/attempt to contact the voter, and
the final decision was to go with strict complete punched hole/clean
address.
Btw, it's around 3 weeks until the removal of rec.arts.comics.other-media
becomes eligible again.
tyg t...@panix.com
Russ Allbery
> I saw the posting in control.newgroups about rec.music.experimental.
> How many days does it usually take for most major news admins to add the
> group?
If they haven't already, I recommend bugging them about it. Several
control messages have already gone out, and it really shouldn't take them
more than a couple of weeks.
Russ Allbery
> Thomas Galloway <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Btw, it's around 3 weeks until the removal of
>> rec.arts.comics.other-media becomes eligible again.
> Russ, how's that group who volunteered to help you with rules stuff
> going? I'd really like to at least try to do something to get that
> margin changed before Mike goes at it again....
I'm making some (very slow) progress at fixing some infrastructure
problems and not much progress in that department right now. I'm not sure
if/when/how that will change; I don't have enough planning horizon right
now for a variety of reasons.
I'm hoping over the next week or so to set up a new system to take over
the software duties for a bunch of random stuff, which is a prerequisite
for quite a lot of stuff that's been backing up and holding up all sorts
of things.
Thomas Galloway
Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <9ag1gp$51b$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>Thomas Galloway <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Btw, it's around 3 weeks until the removal of rec.arts.comics.other-media
>>becomes eligible again.
>I'd really like to at least try to do something to get that margin changed
>before Mike goes at it again....
Ken, I hope you have a better argument on that margin change besides "I
want it that way". From what I recall, in the last six months we've
seen two attempts to remove groups which do have some degree of active
traffic, rac.o-m and misc.jobs.misc. The latter was removed with the
100 vote margin, and the former failed by a single vote to achieve the
100 vote margin. And that was because there were several as or more respected
than you in r.a.c. posters either voting to keep it or abstaining. The
argument that you it's not possible to remove a group due to the 100 vote
margin requirement is on pretty shaky ground at best due to those results.
tyg t...@panix.com
Thomas Galloway
Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <9aitas$dq0$1...@panix6.panix.com>,
>Thomas Galloway <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Ken, I hope you have a better argument on that margin change besides "I
>>want it that way". From what I recall, in the last six months we've
>>seen two attempts to remove groups which do have some degree of active
>>traffic, rac.o-m and misc.jobs.misc. The latter was removed with the
>>100 vote margin, and the former failed by a single vote to achieve the
>>100 vote margin. And that was because there were several as or more respected
>>than you in r.a.c. posters either voting to keep it or abstaining. The
>>argument that you it's not possible to remove a group due to the 100 vote
>>margin requirement is on pretty shaky ground at best due to those results.
>
>"possible" and "reasonable" aren't the same thing. This vote shouldn't have
>been anywhere near the margin. Overwhelming support for a removal translates
>to far fewer votes than overwhelming support for creating a new group.
Um, Ken? We've got two pieces of actual evidence. Neither of which shows
that it's not reasonable to require a hundred vote margin. In one case, the
removal happened. In the other, it barely missed...but not because of apathy,
but rather because there were enough votes against removal (or people
who thought about it but were undecided per abstaining) *by respected users
of that hierarchy* (i.e. not a flake contingent, but reasonable people
who disagree with Ken about the desired removal) to bump up the number of
yes votes needed beyond what was gotten.
What Ken is doing is basically saying that, despite actual evidence that
100 votes isn't an unreasonable margin, 1) Because he thinks a group should
be removed, there is "overwhelming support" for its removal that doesn't
show up in a vote and 2) what amounts to "The lurkers support me in email".
>Pointing to this vote and saying that it shows the system doesn't need a
>change would be as if a 500 vote margin were required to create groups and
>someone pointed to the Babylon 5 group and said "see, they can create groups
>with a 500 vote margin, it's obviously possible, so 500 is fine".
No, Ken, it's pointing to every removal attempt I'm aware of in the past
year, both of which dealt with groups in active hierarchies, and in at
least one case an active set of participants, even if you don't think the
group should exist. The burden's on you to show examples of 100 votes
being too many. And there just haven't been any examples in recent times.
>The precedent is sci.aquaria. A very untried part of the system gave an
>obviously messed up result and the system was changed so that would not
>happen again. Changing the margin here is no odder than changing the 2/3
>margin back then.
So your precendent dates back over a decade, doesn't have anything to do
with removing a group but was about creating one, and again makes the
leap of because you disagreed with a result it was "obviously messed up".
Again, Ken, while a majority did agree with you about rac.o-m, a
noninfitesimal minority of people active in the r.a.c. hierarchy who are
as or more respected there than you disagreed with you. To me, this means
there is reasonable doubt about whether the removal is good or not, and
invalidates your "obviously messed up result" claim as being anything other
than "it didn't happen like Ken wanted it to". And that's with me now
planning to vote for removal if it comes up again.
tyg t...@panix.com
Thomas Galloway
Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <9alatq$dum$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>Thomas Galloway <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In the other, it barely missed...but not because of apathy,
>>but rather because there were enough votes against removal (or people
>>who thought about it but were undecided per abstaining) *by respected users
>>of that hierarchy* (i.e. not a flake contingent, but reasonable people
>>who disagree with Ken about the desired removal) to bump up the number of
>>yes votes needed beyond what was gotten.
>
>kill the proposal because of the size of the required margin, so you can't
>use it to *justify* the sze of the margin.
It justifies it in the sense that it was clearly possible for the removal to
happen; we're not talking a 50:5 result here, but one where enough votes were
cast for a hundred vote margin, the longheld standard, to have been obtained if
fewer reasonable people were against it.
>It did fail because of apathy in the sense that if more people voted, but
>they had voted in exactly the same proportion as the votes we got, it would
>have passed.
So? You can say that of any number of creation groups that didn't get the
100 vote margin. I missed where that needs to be changed because of that.
Ken, your point has been that a 100 vote margin is too hard to achieve. One
of two actual examples achieved it. The other one would have *if people
who are as or more reasonable than you hadn't voted against it*. In both
cases, the 100 vote margin was clearly achievable.
>>The burden's on you to show examples of 100 votes
>>being too many. And there just haven't been any examples in recent times.
>There just haven't been many examples of removal votes *period*, because
>there's little reason why someone would even *begin* a process which has such
>an unrealistic requirement in it. If the requirement was reasonable, there
>would be some examples that weren't special cases.
You mean *all* of the examples we have are "special cases"? Uh huh. Yeah, it's
a small universe, but tossing out all the evidence because it disagrees with
your *opinion* is a bit much.
And, again, nothing has ever stopped you from actually running some removal
attempts to produce this evidence, save for your personal Catch-22 reasoning
of "it'll fail because of the margin so there's no reason to try". Well, guess
what; without *any* evidence that the margin is too high, and evidence to
the contrary that it isn't, it'll get harder and harder to convince folk of
this.
tyg t...@panix.com
Jay Denebeim
Thomas Galloway <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>You mean *all* of the examples we have are "special cases"?
Actually, I'd say any removal of a trafficed newsgroup would be a
special case by definition. Untrafficed newsgroups are another kettle
of spoo entirely, and I don't think anyone thinks the current vote is
good for those, that's being worked on, of course.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
Michael Alan Chary
And as promised, I won't be a proponent this time. I have proved that
whether or not the voting structure for removing a group is adequate
generally, it is just fine for rec.arts.comics.other-media.
--
Vote for Tom Galloway for Most Intelligent Poster in the Bizarro Squiddies!!!
"Since Auschwitz we know what man is capable of. And since Hiroshima we know
what is at stake." -Viktor Frankl, author, neurologist and psychiatrist,
Holocaust survivor (1905-1997)
Michael Alan Chary
Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <9ag1gp$51b$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>Thomas Galloway <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>>becomes eligible again.
>
>really like to at least try to do something to get that margin changed before
>Mike goes at it again....
Not me. I proved my point. Maybe Kate still wants to fuss with it, but as
far as I am concerned this is your job.
piranha
> In article <9ama02$rni$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> Thomas Galloway <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >You mean *all* of the examples we have are "special cases"?
>
> Actually, I'd say any removal of a trafficed newsgroup would be a
> special case by definition. Untrafficed newsgroups are another kettle
> of spoo entirely, and I don't think anyone thinks the current vote is
> good for those, that's being worked on, of course.
oh, nicely said, jay. yes, that is precisely how i see it, and
why i am personally leaning _against_ changing any margins for
removal of groups with on-topic traffi.
--
-piranha
Michael Alan Chary
Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <9anakj$vvk$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>Michael Alan Chary <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>And as promised, I won't be a proponent this time. I have proved that
>>whether or not the voting structure for removing a group is adequate
>>generally, it is just fine for rec.arts.comics.other-media.
>
>remove a group like other-media, but you have not proved that the procedure
>is fine, unless "fine" means "has some chance of working and some chance of
>not".
It failed by one vote. I don't care about groups like other-media, I care
about other-media.
Thomas Galloway
Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>It's still not "fine" for other-media, unless you think that failing by
>one vote was a desirable result.
Geez Ken. I eagerly await your proposal of an election system for a yes-no
decision which has no chance of a single vote boundary condition. Of course,
the statement above also means the creation process isn't "fine" since a
group creation could fail by one vote.
Again, the reason the rac.o-m removal failed was because enough established
and reasonable active r.a.c. posters disagreed with you that the existance
of rac.o-m was so "obviously" a bad thing. That does not make it a flaw in
the system. It was a normal failure in the sense that there happened to be
sufficient, reaonable, realistic, and non-external to Usenet campaigned,
opposition that it didn't pass. It happens. Hell, rac.o-m was created on
the second attempt, and I don't recall anyone bitching that because it
failed with a majority in favor that the whole process needed to be changed.
tyg t...@panix.com
Thomas Galloway
piranha <pir...@gooroos.com> wrote:
>dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote in <9amp9u$eav$1...@dent.deepthot.org>:
>> special case by definition. Untrafficed newsgroups are another kettle
>> of spoo entirely, and I don't think anyone thinks the current vote is
>> good for those, that's being worked on, of course.
> oh, nicely said, jay. yes, that is precisely how i see it, and
> why i am personally leaning _against_ changing any margins for
> removal of groups with on-topic traffi.
Um, semantics, but if the usual removal process is fine for trafficed groups,
but a modification needs to be made for untrafficed groups, it seems to me
that the one the modification is necessary for (i.e. a rule saying "In the
event the group has fewer than N on-topic posts per period X, and is not
a moderated announcement group, then the following removal rules apply"),
is the special case.
And I agree with Jay and piranha here; the current system is fine for
trafficed groups, and a somewhat different system is needed for garbage
collecting abandoned groups.
tyg t...@panix.com
Michael Alan Chary
Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <9anqqf$dsk$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>Michael Alan Chary <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>It failed by one vote. I don't care about groups like other-media, I care
>>about other-media.
>
>one vote was a desirable result.
I believe I was pretty clear that I wanted the group removed. Failing
that, I wanted proof that it was not the hopeless cause you maintain it
is. Since it failed by only one vote despite your active whining against
the vote, insulting me, and your basically trying to sabotage the vote, I
think it was as much as one could hope. Now shut your gob and relax.
Jay Denebeim
Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <uitkgz...@aegis.gooroos.com>,
>piranha <pir...@gooroos.com> wrote:
>>> special case by definition. Untrafficed newsgroups are another kettle
>>> of spoo entirely, and I don't think anyone thinks the current vote is
>>> good for those, that's being worked on, of course.
>> oh, nicely said, jay. yes, that is precisely how i see it, and
>> why i am personally leaning _against_ changing any margins for
>> removal of groups with on-topic traffi.
According to the book of Ken Chapter 3.14 Verse Sqr(-1):
>There are different kinds of special cases.
Ken, 'ya know you've been singing this same song as long as I've seen
you post. Doesn't it get boreing beating your head against the same
topic for decades?
In point of fact *all* special cases are different, that's why they're
*CALLED* 'special cases' in the first place. *furrfu*
Thomas Galloway
Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>To say that a procedure is fine means to me that it produces a desirable
>result most of the time. Unless you think that the failure of this proposal
>is desirable, or unless you think that it's very unlikely (despite it actually
>*happening*), the procedure is not fine.
It produced a desirable result in that 1) Clearly there was enough voter
interest to fulfill the 100 vote margin requirement; we're not even talking
a 99-0 vote after all. 2) A sufficient number of active, respected, posters
in the hierarchy in question thought the group should be kept or were on
the fence about it (abstentions) that it required a larger number of "Yes"
to removal votes to get it passed. Which is exactly what the 2/3rds and
100 vote margins are supposed to accomplish. So, yes, the procedure was fine.
It's just not the outcome you wanted. Deal with it.
Again, the same thing happened the first time rac.o-m was proposed for
creation; it had a majority (don't recall if it passed 2/3rds or not offhand)
but didn't fulfill the qualifications for creation. Instead of wailing about
the system was broken, folk just resubmitted it the next time. Had this
been a creation vote that failed by one vote, I doubt anyone would be yelling
about how the system was broken (well, except for the despamming/"hanging
chad" style controversy, but that's a different matter).
tyg t...@panix.com
Thomas Galloway
Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>Thomas Galloway <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>>A sufficient number of active, respected, posters
>>in the hierarchy in question thought the group should be kept or were on
>>the fence about it (abstentions) that it required a larger number of "Yes"
>>to removal votes to get it passed. Which is exactly what the 2/3rds and
>>100 vote margins are supposed to accomplish.
>sufficient "no" votes to keep the vote from reaching a margin of 100, but
>that does not mean there were sufficient votes to show that the group should
>be removed. Sufficient for one thing, not for the other (and you can't just
>say that they're the same, since that would be circular reasoning).
Ken, I have absolutely no idea what your comment above means.
tyg t...@panix.com
Thomas Galloway
Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>"sufficient" is a relative term. You can't say "this is sufficient". You
>can only say "this is sufficient to do ____". What you seemed to be saying
>was that the number of votes was sufficient to prevent the group from reaching
>the margin.
Not quite. There are two things which were "sufficient" in the rac.o-m vote.
First, the number of votes showed that that was clearly sufficient to
potentially meet the 100 vote margin requirement, which you claim needs to
be reduced. The reason that the 100 vote margin requirement was not actually
met, missing by a single vote, was that sufficient, respected in the rac
hierarchy, voters disagreed with you as to whether rac.o-m should be removed.
To put it another way, you were wrong on two counts; 1) for the rac.o-m vote,
there was no problem with having a 100 vote margin requirement based on
turnout. 2) Not everyone thought rac.o-m was as obvious an abomination as
you did.
>But "doesn't deserve to be removed" isn't necessarily the same as "doesn't
>reach the margin". Saying the latter and treating it as the former is
>equivocation.
In this case, it was the same. Enough people thought it didn't deserve to
be removed that the vote didn't hit the 100 vote margin. Same thing as if
enough people don't want a group created, a creation vote may not hit the
100 vote margin.
tyg t...@panix.com