It is not the fault of Indians that SCI.J-K passed
Uday Reddy
see an unfortunate tendency to blame Indians as the villains in this
whole affair.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't do it!
It is NOT the fault of Indians that SCI.J-K passed:
---------------------------------------------------
Indians campaigned, yes. But, so did the various opposing groups.
While no one will be able to prove conclusively who started the campaign
wars, it is entirely POSSIBLE that the opponents started it and Indians
responded. You simply cannot assume that Indians were the villains. It
is offensive to assume so.
It is NOT the fault of the proponent that there was campaigning:
---------------------------------------------------------------
All available evidence shows that the proponent (Mr. Shrisha Rao)
opposed campaigning and did everything within his means to stop it.
David Lawrence tells us that he even offered to withdraw the proposal if
there was vote fraud. You simply cannot blame the proponent for the
campaigning that happened.
There is no evidence that any of the vocal supporters of the group have
campaigned either. You cannot blame them for the campaigning that
happened.
Perhaps no one with sufficient knowledge of the Usenet guidelines
campaigned. Very likely, it was the outsiders, who had a fleeting
knowledge of Usenet workings and saw a "political battle" and campaigned
for their side. Frankly, the Usenet guidelines are pretty confusing,
vague and strange. You can't blame these outsiders for not
understanding them. So, please don't blame ANYBODY for the campaigning
that happened.
The system broke down.
It is NOT the numerical superiority alone that led to the result:
----------------------------------------------------------------
There is also a tendency to assume that since Indians are numerically
superior, they will vote blindly no matter what the issue is and win
against the opposing groups. It is wrong, it is false and it is
offensive to assume so. You found 23,000 odd votes in favor of SCI.J-K
because Indians agree pretty much unanimously that it is legitimate to
have a newsgroup on Jammu&Kashmir under the SCI hierarchy. It is not
the case that every issue will see the same kind of unanimity or even
that Indians will come out in such large number to vote on every issue.
The near-unanimous opinion of Indians that you saw in this vote is
entirely legitimate, and the opposing groups are entitled to their
opinions. Having such an opinion in no way amounts to "trampling on
minorities." Indians, by and large, do not trample on minorities and it
is offensive to say so.
The passing of SCI.J-K may itself be offensive:
----------------------------------------------
The passing of SCI.J-K is essentially justified by the apprehension
"If this vote were held again, is there any realistic chance of having
a more meaningful outcome?"
Even ignoring the questionaable phrase "more meaningful outcome," there
is an undercurrent of "these folks don't know how to behave; not likely
they will ever learn; so, let us give them a newsgroup so they will go
away." I am not going to press this interpretation strongly. But,
everybody knows the newsgroup was passed half-heartedly, without any
faith in the process. That should not have been the case. If the
process didn't work right, do it again and do it better. Deciding the
way he did, I believe David Lawrence robbed the legitimacy of SCI.J-K
away from Indians.
That is all the more reason Indians were not the villains in this
affair. Please don't generalize from some uncivil characters that you
might have seen in this debate (of which Indians don't necessarily have
a monopoly). Indians are, by and large, reasonable, peaceful,
democratic and supportive of minorities. To assume anything less would
be offensive.
Sorry for the polemic.
Uday Reddy
Vivek Sadananda Pai
In article <317576...@cs.uiuc.edu>, Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> writes:
[...]
|> The passing of SCI.J-K may itself be offensive:
|> ----------------------------------------------
|>
|> The passing of SCI.J-K is essentially justified by the apprehension
|>
|> "If this vote were held again, is there any realistic chance of having
|> a more meaningful outcome?"
|>
|> Even ignoring the questionaable phrase "more meaningful outcome," there
Let me speak up for a moment here and comment on this point.
I've been saying since the original result that this group should be
created _regardless_ of what the voting was. I had made the following
arguments:
a) There was clearly enough interest from the amount of votes received.
b) There was no unanimously accepted "better alternative".
Both points are important, so let me address them separately. As far
as the clear interest goes, Usenet in general is happy to see about
150 people or so with an interest in a topic. We had over 100 times
that many people vote yes for this group. Is it really likely that
fewer than 1% were _really_ interested. In my opinion, no. Now, beyond
this are the reasons behind voting against the group. We accept that
certain reasons are valid for voting against a group, such as bad
panel of moderators (which doesn't apply in this case), bad place
in the hierarchy (which I'll discuss later), or failure to demonstrate
need (which is clearly not the case). So, the number of no votes is
essentially meaningless, if the name issue can be addressed.
Now, let's see what happened on the name issue - during the RFD stage,
many people were vocal about the name issue, and in the end, it was
a total stalemate. Why? Because nobody could convince the others
that their proposal was inherently better. There is, just as a matter
of fact, a state in India which happens to be called Jammu & Kashmir.
To deny this is an exercise in political futility, because it's a
waste of breath. It was a waste of breath during the RFD, and it was
a waste of breath after the original results posting. The claim that
there was a universally agreeable better name which could generate
a broad spectrum of support just never produced results. In fact, I'd
wager that it would _not_ have produced results, but that's a matter
of my pragmatism more than anything else.
|> is an undercurrent of "these folks don't know how to behave; not likely
|> they will ever learn; so, let us give them a newsgroup so they will go
|> away." I am not going to press this interpretation strongly. But,
I don't think that the interpretation as given is the only one. It's
entirely possible to view it in the light I did above: the vote
proved that there's enough interest to warrant the group, and there
wasn't a logical reason that the name is any better or worse than
any other name proposed, so what is the point of another vote? In
my opinion, another vote would have been a waste of time.
|> everybody knows the newsgroup was passed half-heartedly, without any
|> faith in the process. That should not have been the case. If the
|> process didn't work right, do it again and do it better. Deciding the
|> way he did, I believe David Lawrence robbed the legitimacy of SCI.J-K
|> away from Indians.
Interestingly, this was the exact outcome I'd pushed for in earlier
posts on news.groups, but I was glad to hear that the magnitude
of support for the creation of the group was what it was. I asked
that the group be created irrespective of the outcome of the votes,
but having the votes 10:1 in favor of the group doesn't hurt.
Do I feel robbed of any legitimacy? I don't think so. I do sense
some feeling of dejection (for lack of a better word) among some
people about the passage of this group, but I don't see how that
solves anything. There has been a new proposal floated about groups
with controversial names, and I'll comment on it when I have some
more time. I hope that others do as well.
I'm happy that this group passed. I'm unhappy with some of the people
making it into what they did, but I don't see how a revote is going
to solve anything.
-Vivek
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
highlights, to make my response manageable and readable]
In article <317576...@cs.uiuc.edu>, Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
here are some excerpts that analyse the vote on sci.jk:
>Indians campaigned, yes. But, so did the various opposing groups.
>All available evidence shows that the proponent (Mr. Shrisha Rao)
>opposed campaigning and did everything within his means to stop it.
>David Lawrence tells us that he even offered to withdraw the proposal if
>there was vote fraud.
>There is no evidence that any of the vocal supporters of the group have
>campaigned either.
>Perhaps no one with sufficient knowledge of the Usenet guidelines
>campaigned.
>You found 23,000 odd votes in favor of SCI.J-K
>because Indians agree pretty much unanimously that it is legitimate to
>have a newsgroup on Jammu&Kashmir under the SCI hierarchy.
>The near-unanimous opinion of Indians that you saw in this vote is
>entirely legitimate, and the opposing groups are entitled to their
>opinions.
The above analysis clearly shows that the sci.jk vote is *legitimate*
[your own words] despite the aberrations. the group is voted *not*
with some wafer-thin majority to suspect that the result could have
been different. the vote was as *unequivocal* as one can get for
a news group creation. Tale has himself clearly expressed the opinion
that the result of a revote can hardly be expected to be any different.
>Even ignoring the questionaable phrase "more meaningful outcome," there
>is an undercurrent of "these folks don't know how to behave; not likely
>they will ever learn; so, let us give them a newsgroup so they will go
>away."
This is a quantum jump:
there was not even an indirect implication of such a thing in Tale's post.
it is rather unfortunate that such a harsh language is now being used
to describe his very rational and reasoned analysis of the situation.
you might have missed the main point in result posting: most of the votes
are from *real* persons, and hardly there are any significant machine-
generated votes. that itself re-emphasises the fact that the vote is
legitimate. only problem, as *every one* acknowledges is presence of email
campaigns. and it is virtually impossible to control this, on vote such
as this, even if there is a revote.
> I am not going to press this interpretation strongly. But,
>everybody knows the newsgroup was passed half-heartedly, without any
>faith in the process.
Thanks for calling this an *interpretation*.
>Deciding theway he did, I believe David Lawrence robbed the
>Legitimacy of Sci.J-K
>away from Indians.
this is funny: you said the vote is legitimate. David Lawrence
creating a group considering the vote to be as best one could
get on the issue. and now you claim, he robbed the legitimacy!
>That is all the more reason Indians were not the villains in this
>affair. Please don't generalize from some uncivil characters that you
>might have seen in this debate (of which Indians don't necessarily have
>a monopoly).
that is the whole problem. if for every single uncivil character's conduct
if a vote is invalidated, hardly any group can get created.
>Uday Reddy
with regards
gopal
Uday Reddy
>
> In article <317576...@cs.uiuc.edu>, Uday Reddy <re...@cs.uiuc.edu> writes:
> [...]
> |> The passing of SCI.J-K may itself be offensive:
> |> ----------------------------------------------
> |>
> |> The passing of SCI.J-K is essentially justified by the apprehension
> |>
> |> "If this vote were held again, is there any realistic chance of having
> |> a more meaningful outcome?"
> |>
> |> Even ignoring the questionaable phrase "more meaningful outcome," there
>
> Let me speak up for a moment here and comment on this point.
>
> I've been saying since the original result that this group should be
> created _regardless_ of what the voting was. I had made the following
> arguments:
> a) There was clearly enough interest from the amount of votes received.
> b) There was no unanimously accepted "better alternative".
I am afraid you are trying to read into Lawrence's announcement what you
*want* to read into it, not what is actually there. You too, Gopal!
Had SCI.J-K been passed for the kind of reasons that you are adovcating,
I would have found nothing objectionable. It was not.
You should keep in mind that David Lawrence invoked the *escape clause*
to pass SCI.J-K. He did not follow the precedent, current practice or
convention. So, what "extraordinary circumstances" were there to
disregard the convention? (The convention is that rampant campaigning
should invalidate the vote. Others can correct me if I am wrong.)
Does the announcement say 23K votes are extraordinary, so the
campaigning can be ignored? It does not. Does the announcement say
that the votes were 10:1 in favor, so campaigning can be ignored? It
does not. (If it did, the next time one campaigns for a vote, they would
only need to cross this threshold to override the convention.)
The other considerations mentioned are hardly extraordinary. The only
thing that stands out as extraordinary is the clause I cited. This is
the basis on which SCI.J-K has been passed, and I find it
objectionable.
Uday
Uday Reddy
your questions too. Regarding the others:
> The above analysis clearly shows that the sci.jk vote is *legitimate*
> [your own words] despite the aberrations.
Those were not my exact words. I said the *opinions* held by Indians
were legitimate, misguided perhaps, but still legitimate. They have a
right to these opinions.
But, the *vote* being legitimate is an issue of whether Usenet
guidelines and conventions have been adhered to. We know they were not.
The logical action should have been invalidation and a repeat vote.
I agree that the result of a repeat vote would have been probably
similar. But, that has not been demonstrated. Right now, one can throw
mud at us and it sticks. If there were a repeat vote where the rules
were adhered to, there would have been no basis for such accusations.
This is the sense in which I am saying legitimacy has been robbed off
the Indians.
> the group is voted *not*
> with some wafer-thin majority to suspect that the result could have
> been different. the vote was as *unequivocal* as one can get for
> a news group creation.
I didn't see Tale mention that the vote was "unequivocal." Quite the
contrary.
> Tale has himself clearly expressed the opinion
> that the result of a revote can hardly be expected to be any
> different.
Yes, that is Tale's opinion. Proves nothing.
> >Even ignoring the questionaable phrase "more meaningful outcome," there
> >is an undercurrent of "these folks don't know how to behave; not likely
> >they will ever learn; so, let us give them a newsgroup so they will go
> >away."
>
> This is a quantum jump:
Yes, admittedly. Perhaps I am being harsh. But, I do sense this
undercurrent (at least the first half of it) in many participants of the
sci.j-k debate. Tale's announcement reinforces it, even if it was
unintended.
> you might have missed the main point in result posting: most of the votes
> are from *real* persons, and hardly there are any significant machine-
> generated votes.
Yes, I read that. But, it is hardly an "extraordinary circumstance"
that warranted the escape clause. So, it could not be the "main point".
> that itself re-emphasises the fact that the vote is
> legitimate. only problem, as *every one* acknowledges is presence of email
> campaigns. and it is virtually impossible to control this, on vote such
> as this, even if there is a revote.
I don't agree with that. I believe the email campaigns were a result of
misunderstandings. Clearer instructions/explanations about the process
would have countered them in the repeat vote.
The very fact that there are these Usenet conventions suggests that it
is possible to control the email campaigns. At least, Usenet people
believe so. Why can't they believe the same when subcontinental folks
are involved?
> that is the whole problem. if for every single uncivil character's conduct
> if a vote is invalidated, hardly any group can get created.
Gopal, the question is: are Indians and other subcontinental folks
capable of living by the rules that Usenet has lived with for a long
time? You seem to think they are not. In that case, you are being
offensive.
Uday
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
[i am deleting most of Uday's article and focusing on the last
para, since it seems to summarise the main issue. also, i think
the other issues were debated on a follow up to Dr Bapa Rao's
post]
Uday: you wrote:
-------------------
Gopal, the question is: are Indians and other subcontinental folks
capable of living by the rules that Usenet has lived with for a long
time? You seem to think they are not. In that case, you are being
offensive.
Uday
-------------------
my response:
some time ago when some one made a faint and feable suggestion
that there should be a ban against the proposals from subcontinent,
*if* the folks do not behave, Vivek described it as *repulsive*
[and i agree with his choice of the word]. And, it would be
equally awkward to imply that some how those subcontinent folks
follow the guidelines *more* ridigly than the others. i know
you have not stated such a thing, but the point i am trying to
make is that the very description of voting conduct on the basis
of a *geographic* region is *silly*.
people are people, and every where. there will be net-gods who
take upon themselves the duty to make campaigns. but there are
also people who make *innocent* mistakes. and if you take
statistics, i doubt any significant proportion of sc* groups
regulars ever know the existence of news.grous. i myself was
on the net for over 3 1/2 years, but the only time i came to
know of the relevance of news.groups group, was during the
sci.jk thread, and due to Shrisha Rao's specific and *explicit*
request to debate the issue on news.groups. that is in Dec last.
so, not many sci.jk voters will ever know of the debates here.
and, yes CFV contains lots of administrative stuff about what
is right and what is inappropriate. but, just consider the
discussion between Rohan Oberoi and Vivek on this issue, i
think, on "why scpunjab.moderated failed". Rohan was a proposed
*moderator* of the then proposed scp-moderated group and
has participated on RFD threads, including the one on sci.jk.
so, it is reasonable to consider him a better informed person
on the issue of campaigns for a vote and edited CFVs than an
average sci.jk voter. and here is what he said: *the CFV
guidelines on campaign conduct* are confusing and unclear
[i am trying to paraphrase].
so what about ordinary folks who may not have been exposed to this
kind of discussions about what is appropriate and what is not?
and also what about those determined net gods that dont care about
the rules?
so, to expect that *every one* will understand usenet guidelines
the same way, and then to assume that every one will *follow* the
guidelines in letter and spirit, is like going on a jolly
trip to *that* eutopean nation: imagiNation!
you must have seen the post by Pamesh Gupta from McGill university.
he unequivocally apologized for writing a campaign article on
india-D, and described it as *innocent* mistake. how will you
ensure that such an *innocent* mistake does not recur from some
other person next time?
given all these, i do not understand how one can hypothesize
that the voting is going to be different on *this* subject,
that is, jammu-kashmir, next time.
Tale stated that most of the votes seem to be from real persons.
When a vote by 25,000 voters -- with a *very* clear outcome
of 23,600+ yes vs 1800+ no -- is cancelled and a revote is held,
i consider it *naive* to postulate that it would not promote a more
stronger campaign from both sides -- from a section of *suporters*
because they might consider the revote as a *surreptious* killing
of a *popular* vote, and from opponents because they *now* know
the scale of support for the group, and the *light years* yet to
cover!
regards
gopal
Shrisha Rao
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana <go...@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
[*chomp*]
>you must have seen the post by Pamesh Gupta from McGill university.
>he unequivocally apologized for writing a campaign article on
>india-D, and described it as *innocent* mistake. how will you
>ensure that such an *innocent* mistake does not recur from some
>other person next time?
In this specific instance, I have made sure that no one will use
India-D Digest in that manner ever again, by specifically making a
request of its editor Uma Ramamurthy not to allow campaign postings,
or any kind of newsgroup-creation related discussion, on that forum. I
also made a posting to India-D itself (look up the India-D archive for
the first of April) advising readers to merely give a pointer to a
news.groups posting, if they so wish; Henry Groover did so for the
humanities.language.sanskrit group he and I co-proposed, and Vivek Pai
likewise did this for soc.culture.indian.karnataka.
I was a little surprised to learn that that Pamesh Gupta's posting had
appeared on India-D in the first place, but this appears to have been
an innocent mistake on Uma's part; she was genuinely unaware of UseNet
voting rules. In the past India-D Digest has been used to discuss
newsgroup creation -- one distinctly remembers that a lot of
discussion about soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya took place on India-D,
and I wouldn't be surprised if a significant number of votes for that
newsgroup came from India-D's readership. At the time, the UVV did not
exist, and the voting and campaigning rules were quite unclear, at
least to me and many others.
Thus, at least in future, one may hope that we will not see India-D
being used as a tool of improper campaigns and vote fraud. That will
not remove the problem itself, but it's still something.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>
>regards
>gopal
>
Uday Reddy
You should know that I was being fictitious when I said "you are being
offensive". I sure think you would find the idea repulsive.
Your analysis of the sci.j-k vote coincides with mine (as stated in the
root of this thread, probably expired by now). But, where we differ is
in the logical conclusion that it points to. To me, the logical
conslusion is to invalidate the vote and conduct a revote. (Here, I am
supported by the established usenet procedures.) You tend to think a
revote would see the same kind of abuse again. I don't believe that.
Here are some reasons why:
1. The people who made innocent mistakes would have learnt about their
mistakes from the first vote. They voted and their vote was
invalidated. Obviously, they will question why and find out.
2. If I were the UVV for the revote, I would put in bold letters at the
top of the CFV, the fact that it is a revote. I would explain what
happened in the first vote, why it was invalidated and what actions
would constitute abuse. This should take care of the innocent mistakes
made by outsiders (like say the editors of India-D).
3. I would have also liked to see the revote of SCI.J-K and a vote for
SCK go out jointly. That way people would understand better what the
namespace issue is, before they vote.
4. Now for the malicious villains who might want to sabotage the vote.
My belief is that they would be very few and the UVV's know how to deal
with this kind of abuse anyway. (What they could not deal with were the
large number of "innocent" mistakes that happened this time.)
So, to my non-expert eyes, it seems perfectly plausible that a revote
would have worked. If the experts want to convince me otherwise, I am
willing to listen. But, todate, no Usenet expert has tried to explain
why a revote could not have worked.
Uday
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
>Gopal,
>
>You should know that I was being fictitious when I said "you are being
>offensive". I sure think you would find the idea repulsive.
>
>Your analysis of the sci.j-k vote coincides with mine (as stated in the
>root of this thread, probably expired by now). But, where we differ is
>in the logical conclusion that it points to. To me, the logical
>conslusion is to invalidate the vote and conduct a revote. (Here, I am
>supported by the established usenet procedures.) You tend to think a
>revote would see the same kind of abuse again. I don't believe that.
>
>Here are some reasons why:
>
>1. The people who made innocent mistakes would have learnt about their
>mistakes from the first vote. They voted and their vote was
>invalidated. Obviously, they will question why and find out.
i will agree with your contention that the people who believe that
they made an *innocent* mistake will desist from such a campaign
in future. but, are we merely talking about a few *individuals*?
there are freely available email databases, and *adequate* supply
of "enthusiasts" on either side of the issue, and any one can do
the same thing, not just those involved in prv vote and learnt
the lessons the hard way.
>2. If I were the UVV for the revote, I would put in bold letters at the
>top of the CFV, the fact that it is a revote. I would explain what
>happened in the first vote, why it was invalidated and what actions
>would constitute abuse. This should take care of the innocent mistakes
>made by outsiders (like say the editors of India-D).
now you seem to be implicitly conceding that most voters of sci.jk
*did* read full CFV. [otherwise, why would you argue that some
changes in CFV wording might make all the difference?]. in that case
you are undermining the very rationale for a revote in the first place.
further, a revised CFV as suggested by you does not stop it from
being widely circulated; nor does it control vote solicitations
from uninterested parties.
even *without* such a rewording i am sure the prestegious mailing
lists will desist from repeat of the problem on their lists.
Please see what Shrisha Rao wrote about india-D. but that is
only a *minor* part of the problem
*assuming* that certain uninterested parties were dragged into
the vote through campaign in the original vote, dont you think
they are very likely to be participating in the revote too? that
means, that the prv email campaigns are likely to be effective
in revote too. i personally feel that there will be more
active campaign for a revote, and i explain why, later in the
article.
>3. I would have also liked to see the revote of SCI.J-K and a vote for
>SCK go out jointly. That way people would understand better what the
>namespace issue is, before they vote.
this will cause *uproar*, i guess, because then the potential voters
and prv voters can strongly suspect that the sci.jk vote was
essentially cancelled to *somehow* promote sck. anyway, how can
*revote* change the character of CFV?
Actually, this gives more reasons for supporters of sci.jk as well
as opponents to indulge in excessive campaign: sci.jk RFD and sck
RFD were discussed as if they are separate proposals. and if they
are to be combined at this stage, some people will definitely
feel the *need* to "educate" the voters about the differences. you
can easily guess the nature of such a campaign.
Actually, i would like to remind that such a proposal to combine
*was* discussed during RFD stage, and sck.jk proposal went ahead
[rightly so in my opinion]. Now, at this stage to combine the
proposals can definitely lead to interpretations that *somehow*
what could not be successfully achieved during the RFD stage
is being sought to be achieved on the *pretext* of a revote.
would not that be a redefinition of a revote?
>4. Now for the malicious villains who might want to sabotage the vote.
>My belief is that they would be very few and the UVV's know how to deal
>with this kind of abuse anyway. (What they could not deal with were the
>large number of "innocent" mistakes that happened this time.)
are a few individuals not adequate? how many individuals you are
suspecting to have participated in the current vote? how can UVV
deal with such an abuse? Was not Tale's note implicitly implying that
the revote is unlikely to result in a more meaningful result for
these reasons? actually how *large* is your estimate of number of
innocent mistakes? and actually how *small* is your estimate of
net gods?
>So, to my non-expert eyes, it seems perfectly plausible that a revote
>would have worked. If the experts want to convince me otherwise, I am
>willing to listen. But, todate, no Usenet expert has tried to explain
>why a revote could not have worked.
>Uday
i am not a net-expert, but indulged in the excercise, anyway.
regards
gopal
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 07:37:26 GMT
active campaign in a revote, and i explain why, later in the
article.
massive email campaigns do not necessarily mean massive involement
of personnel in such campaigns.
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
Uday Reddy
discussion of the mechanics of such a revote, is there? I am just
saying that if there was a will there was a way. Since we know how
things went wrong the first time, it is possible to take measures to
counter them.
I don't think the abuse the first time was really in terms of pre-filled
ballots or even campaign letters. Most people who received these
letters would be smart enough to change the ballots the way they wanted.
The real abuse was that very many non-readers of Usenet voted. They did
so on the Indian side because they were told that Pakistanis were
campaigning against the formation of an Indian newsgroup on
Jammu&Kashmir. So, it was their patriotic duty to come and vote for
sci.j-k. I presume that the dual version went around the Pakistani
side. Once this is understood, the CFV can counter it, for instance, by
stating right at the top something to the effect of
"THIS CFV IS AN OFFICIAL USENET DOCUMENT.
IT SHOULD NOT BE COPIED, POSTED OR E-MAILED."
There are plenty of ways to draw people's attention to what is proper.
And, I believe most people would respect what is proper.
How large is my estimate of innocent mistakes, you ask. I would think
somewhere between 100-200 people would have been instrumental in
distributing the CFV (edited or unedited). Why that number? pretty
much every University on this side of Atlantic with say 20,000 students
would have a sizeable Indian student community, perhaps even an Indian
Student Association. I expect that pretty much somebody from every such
association would have received the CFV from some source and distributed
it to their local body. Similarly, alumni groups, professional
associations, other kinds of interest groups etc. I would expect
something similar happened on the Pakistani side too. Of course, in
most cases the CFV went along with a campaign letter which got passed
around. These were the innocent mistakes. Most people who were
instrumental in this didn't know that the CFV wasn't supposed to be
passed around. (I didn't read that far down the CFV when I did my
little bit.)
How many malicious net gods? Well, you know the net better than I do.
How many do you think are there? I would guess, may be, five such
people who might have been involved with the sci.j-k vote.
Uday
Russ Allbery
> Since there is not going to be a revote, there is no point in a long
> discussion of the mechanics of such a revote, is there? I am just
> saying that if there was a will there was a way. Since we know how
> things went wrong the first time, it is possible to take measures to
> counter them.
No, this is what I've been trying to get across. The abuse of the first
vote was the widespread voting for purely political reasons, attempting to
use the Usenet namespace to make a political point and rendering the vote
worthless for measuring what it was intended to measure.
No matter what you do to the CFV, no matter what language you put on the
ballot, on this issue you're not going to be able to counter that abuse.
There is no way to hold a legitimate Usenet vote, in the manner in which
the system was intended to be used, on this topic under the current system
or any minor modification of it.
This is not the fault of the proponents. It is not the fault of all of
the supporters. It is not the fault of all of the opponents. It is the
fault of *some* of the supporters and *some* of the opponents, some of
whom know exactly what they're doing and don't care and some of whom don't
understand the purpose of a Usenet vote. There are more people in the
latter category than anyone has any way of reaching and educating within
any reasonable timeframe, not to mention that as new people come on the
Net that category is constantly growing.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Zoli Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq
On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Uday Reddy wrote:
> "THIS CFV IS AN OFFICIAL USENET DOCUMENT.
> IT SHOULD NOT BE COPIED, POSTED OR E-MAILED."
>
> There are plenty of ways to draw people's attention to what is proper.
> And, I believe most people would respect what is proper.
Most would; but you only need a single one to edit out that warning and
pass the rest on without it, so the voters reached by email solicitation
won't see it after all (incidentally warnings like that are already part
of the CFV and anyone who'd care is likely to find them right near the
voting instructions)...
- --
Zoli fek...@bc.edu, fek...@c2.org, mag...@world.std.com
keeper of Hungarian FAQ: <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>
<'finger hungarian-...@www.hix.com'>
Personal PGP: 0x3B339A21 = AF 35 25 A2 FA 65 AC E5 48 91 AD 42 6C 84 4B 05
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBMX1N2cQ/4s87M5ohAQF+MQIA2YNd2sUHtMctwxeayTzxA3q6fPu0nnXt
cbWitbEjc9R23RE6vd90ZGtSkdyhUrLUR+DMZTVIUS2RPc27taPTtQ==
=a4CG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----