Campaigning on soc.religion.vaishnava.dvaita
Dean Hougen
sent by Shrisha Rao, a proponent for soc.religion.vaishnava.dvaita, to
dvait...@dvaita.org. This message, I believe, violates the guidelines
against campaigning for news groups in mailing lists. It can also be read
at http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_29/msg00128.html.
This message is in no way a neutral pointer but explicitly calls for
readers to vote yes on the group. It does not indicate that yes votes
should only be cast by those interested in using the new group.
It should be pointed out that this message was sent prior to the posting of
the CFV to news.announce.newgroups (on 27 July 1999) and the mailing of the
CFV to dvait...@dvaita.org (on 31 July 1999). However, the message
attempts to convince the readers of dvait...@dvaita.org that the time
for discussion is past and the only thing remaining is the voting. With
this message the proponent is clearly trying to rally votes without his
audience participating in an open discussion of the issues. This, of
course, is what restrictions on campaigning during the CFV are trying to
prevent.
For these reasons, I believe that the results of this vote should be
invalidated.
----------------------begin included article------------------------
Voting on soc.religion.vaishnava.dvaita -- PLEASE READ
To: dvait...@dvaita.org
Subject: Voting on soc.religion.vaishnava.dvaita -- PLEASE READ
From: Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:46:15 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: arav...@rocketmail.com, t...@netdoor.com, mata...@cisco.com
Reply-To: sh...@dvaita.org (Shrisha Rao)
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:46:46 -0700
Resent-From: dvait...@dvaita.org
Resent-Message-ID: <"03HYS3.0.e17.4arbt"@mx1>
Resent-Sender: dvaita-li...@dvaita.org
Greetings.
After the successful completion of the discussion period outlined in
our RFD proposal of June 28 for the soc.religion.vaishnava.dvaita
newsgroup, a neutral votetaker has now been assigned to collect votes,
and he will be posting a formal Call For Votes in the near future.
We, the proponents of the newsgroup, would like to request you to vote
YES when the CFV is posted. Please read the instructions given there,
follow them carefully, and vote; every vote counts!
It should also be noted that according to the voting rules in place,
no one may send out CFVs or voting instructions to any person or forum
other than the neutral votetaker. If you would like to ask another
person to vote, please ask that person to get the CFV off the archive,
or even to mail the votetaker to request a copy of the same. This is
a serious restriction, and any infringements could result in the vote
being canceled.
Last but not the least, a reminder once again that discussion of the
newsgroup proposal is also not supposed to take place while voting is
on.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
=============================================================================
To unsubscribe, send message with subject `unsubscribe' to
dvaita-li...@dvaita.org (for list)
dvaita-dig...@dvaita.org (for digest);
mail to dva...@dvaita.org to reach list admins.
Remove this footer from followups.
http://www.dvaita.org/list/help.html
=============================================================================
-------------------------end included article-----------------------
Dean Hougen
--
"The rules are written in the stones.
Break the rules and you get no bones."
- Oingo Boingo
Jay Denebeim
Dean Hougen <hou...@atto.cs.umn.edu> wrote:
>It should be pointed out that this message was sent prior to the
>posting of the CFV to news.announce.newgroups (on 27 July 1999) and
>the mailing of the CFV to dvait...@dvaita.org (on 31 July 1999).
>However, the message attempts to convince the readers of
>dvait...@dvaita.org that the time for discussion is past and the
>only thing remaining is the voting. With this message the proponent
>is clearly trying to rally votes without his audience participating
>in an open discussion of the issues. This, of course, is what
>restrictions on campaigning during the CFV are trying to prevent.
It's not during the CFV phase. I don't see that this is an issue.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
Dean Hougen
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us> wrote:
>It's not during the CFV phase. I don't see that this is an issue.
As you are well aware, we don't have an explicit set of rules of what is
permissible and what isn't with regard to campaigning. What we do have is
an objective (to ensure that those voting yes are actually interested in
the group). In my opinion, this campaigning was an attempt to undermine
that objective. Trying to play rules-lawyer ("It's not during the CFV
phase.") isn't useful.
Dean Hougen
--
"All you get is ridicule, laughter, and a trip to the house of pain."
- Oingo Boingo
Brian Mailman
>
> In article <7pf9en$a61$1...@news1.tc.umn.edu>,
> Dean Hougen <hou...@atto.cs.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> >It should be pointed out that this message was sent prior to the
> >posting of the CFV to news.announce.newgroups (on 27 July 1999) and
> >the mailing of the CFV to dvait...@dvaita.org (on 31 July 1999).
> >However, the message attempts to convince the readers of
> >dvait...@dvaita.org that the time for discussion is past and the
> >only thing remaining is the voting. With this message the proponent
> >is clearly trying to rally votes without his audience participating
> >in an open discussion of the issues. This, of course, is what
> >restrictions on campaigning during the CFV are trying to prevent.
>
Perhaps it doesn't violate the -letter- of the law, but it certainly
violates the spirit. If I were a non-newsgroups semi-clued person I
would read that as the voting had begun already. It's a detestable
move, IMHO.
What troubles me further is the last paragraph:
"Last but not the least, a reminder once again that discussion of the
newsgroup proposal is also not supposed to take place while voting is
going on."
B/
Shrisha Rao
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us> wrote:
>In article <7pf9en$a61$1...@news1.tc.umn.edu>,
>Dean Hougen <hou...@atto.cs.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>>However, the message attempts to convince the readers of
>>dvait...@dvaita.org that the time for discussion is past and the
>>only thing remaining is the voting. With this message the proponent
>>is clearly trying to rally votes without his audience participating
>>in an open discussion of the issues. This, of course, is what
>>restrictions on campaigning during the CFV are trying to prevent.
>
>It's not during the CFV phase. I don't see that this is an issue.
More to the point, the posting was to a forum that itself received the
RFD and the CFV from the proper sources, is mentioned in them, and is
to be gated to the newsgroup, and where the newsgroup idea has been
discussed for three years or more. The worst the posting could be
accused of is redundancy.
If I had really meant to campaign improperly, I could probably have
raised a thousand votes at a snap with one posting to India-D Digest,
and at least a couple of hundred from the VMS list, and no one would
have known about it because there's no hotlinked archive in either
case, and I don't think anyone here reads them.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>Jay
--
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In article <7pfane$u7g$1...@dent.deepthot.aurora.co.us>,
> Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us> wrote:
> >In article <7pf9en$a61$1...@news1.tc.umn.edu>,
> >Dean Hougen <hou...@atto.cs.umn.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>However, the message attempts to convince the readers of
> >>dvait...@dvaita.org that the time for discussion is past and the
> >>only thing remaining is the voting. With this message the proponent
> >>is clearly trying to rally votes without his audience participating
> >>in an open discussion of the issues. This, of course, is what
> >>restrictions on campaigning during the CFV are trying to prevent.
> >
> >It's not during the CFV phase. I don't see that this is an issue.
>
> More to the point, the posting was to a forum that itself received the
> RFD and the CFV from the proper sources, is mentioned in them, and is
> to be gated to the newsgroup, and where the newsgroup idea has been
> discussed for three years or more. The worst the posting could be
> accused of is redundancy.
Except for the part which said:
>We, the proponents of the newsgroup, would like to request you to vote
>YES when the CFV is posted.
Hardly the neutral pointer that is expected.
taf
Dean Hougen
Shrisha Rao <sh...@junk.nyx.net> wrote:
>More to the point, the posting was to a forum that itself received the
Irrelevant.
I also note that you did not encourage people from the list to come over to
news.groups and follow or participate in the discussion. Instead, your
follow-up message to the list seems like an attempt to contain or quash any
interest in the discussion by list readers. See:
http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_28/msg00252.html
>... and the CFV from the proper sources, ...
Irrelevant.
>... is mentioned in them,
Irrelevant.
>... and is
>to be gated to the newsgroup, ...
Irrelevant.
>... and where the newsgroup idea has been
>discussed for three years or more.
Irrelevant.
I also note that I searched your archives for the last six months or so but
found no discussion during that time. If I have missed some messages,
please do correct me.
>... The worst the posting could be
>accused of is redundancy.
No, your message was clearly campaigning and clearly in violation of the
guidelines. The only question now is: Is it bad enough to invalidate the
vote. I think it is.
>If I had really meant to campaign improperly, ...
So, failure by honest mistake is to be accepted now?
>... I could probably have
>raised a thousand votes at a snap with one posting to India-D Digest,
>and at least a couple of hundred from the VMS list, ...
"I could have killed 20 people, but instead I only wounded 3, therefore it
isn't a real crime." Nice logic.
>... and no one would
>have known about it because there's no hotlinked archive in either
>case, and I don't think anyone here reads them.
Of course, you were well aware of the risk if such a message came to light,
because with these lists you would hardly claim it was an innocent mistake.
Nor with these lists could you have thrown out the list of irrelevancies
that you used above to try to distract from the issue.
Dean Hougen
--
"What is the law? No spill blood." - Oingo Boingo
Shrisha Rao
Todd A. Farmerie <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>Except for the part which said:
>
>>We, the proponents of the newsgroup, would like to request you to vote
>>YES when the CFV is posted.
>
>Hardly the neutral pointer that is expected.
Aha, but then, a *pointer* is only when the CFV actually exists and is
pointed to; there is no such thing as a "pointer" to a future document.
I can do any and all campaigning beforehand, and the rules cannot apply in
respect of things which do not yet exist. Most of the campaigning in this
case was well over before the RFD was even sent to Tale, and was most
un-neutral. Are you going to object to that too?
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>taf
--
Dean Hougen
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>In article <7pf9en$a61$1...@news1.tc.umn.edu>,
>Dean Hougen <hou...@atto.cs.umn.edu> wrote:
>>against campaigning for news groups in mailing lists.
>
We are (or, at least, I am) still waiting to hear from tale. If he lets
this vote and the SSF-AM vote stand, however, then I will entirely agree
with you. Letting these stand would be a pretty clear precedent that
campaigning in mailing lists is permitted.
>If the CFV is mailed to the entire list, it is pretty obvious that
>there is no limitation on who may vote, and no reason to complain that
>people who are not interested in voting are being asked to vote.
>They're getting a CFV handed to them by the vote taker.
I do not believe that CFVs should be mailed to mailing lists. Only neutral
pointers and only during the RFD stage, starting with the first official
RFD. But, then, that is my opinion. We'll have to see what tale says.
>There is no rule that says they must participate in any discussion.
Of course not. I never said there was. What there have been in the past,
however, were guidelines meant to discourage people from rallying voters
who have not been following or participating in discussions. Whether or
not those guidelines are still followed is awaiting David's decision (now
on two votes).
>>For these reasons, I believe that the results of this vote should be
>>invalidated.
>
>No rules were broken. There is no reason to invalidate anything.
Maybe, maybe not. That is what tale needs to decide.
Dean Hougen
--
"Who makes the rules? Someone else." - Oingo Boingo
Jay Denebeim
>Except for the part which said:
>
>>We, the proponents of the newsgroup, would like to request you to vote
>>YES when the CFV is posted.
>
>Hardly the neutral pointer that is expected.
Again, this is during the RFD phase and unless he'd been reading the
fat acceptance discussion in the last couple of weeks how could he
have known people are trying to change the rules again? You can't
very well expect someone to read all the threads.
Shrisha Rao
Dean Hougen <hou...@atto.cs.umn.edu> wrote:
>>>For these reasons, I believe that the results of this vote should be
>>>invalidated.
>>
>>No rules were broken. There is no reason to invalidate anything.
>
>Maybe, maybe not. That is what tale needs to decide.
I'm happy waiting, in case the votetaker decides there is cause to
postpone publication of the results. However, I do hope for the sakes
of the votetaker's (and the voters') time that Tale decides to uphold
the present vote; when the results are published, it will become
apparent that there simply aren't enough NO votes to justify the
thought that the result would be any different next time. I myself
have done a fair bit of volunteer work (in real life) for the American
Red Cross and others, and would have for some kook to have wasted
weeks' worth of my work for some misbegotten reason. It is not going
to change anything to have another vote, except send a lot of work
down the drain for the petty satisfaction of a few numskulls who
belatedly realize that there's nothing they can do to stop a proposal
they have somehow taken a dislike to.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>Dean Hougen
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Aha, but then, a *pointer* is only when the CFV actually exists and is
> pointed to; there is no such thing as a "pointer" to a future document.
> I can do any and all campaigning beforehand, and the rules cannot apply in
> respect of things which do not yet exist.
Oooh. Your sly intelect has me right where you want me. You have
pointing to the line in the published Rules of Conduct that justifies
your posting. News flash - there are no published Rules of Conduct.
Its a lot more subtle than that. There are DOs and DON'Ts, and a lot of
grey areas. The more you impinge on the grey areas, the more you raise
the hackles of people in news.groups.
You claimed that what you posted was, at worst, redundant. This is not
correct. At worst, it was campaigning by the proponent, and earned the
expected reaction.
> Most of the campaigning in this
> case was well over before the RFD was even sent to Tale, and was most
> un-neutral. Are you going to object to that too?
No RFD, no proponent, so obviously discussion before the RFD cannot be
viewed as campaigning by the proponent. (what is good for the goose . .
.) More importantly, there is a difference between saying "I think a
group about _____ is a good idea", and saying "a CFV is about to be
posted - when it is, vote YES". One is stating an opinion (and perhaps
inviting discussion), the other is campaigning.
taf
Dean Hougen
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>In article <7pffjk$bmc$1...@news1.tc.umn.edu>,
>Dean Hougen <hou...@atto.cs.umn.edu> wrote:
>>No, your message was clearly campaigning and clearly in violation of the
>>guidelines.
>
You know the answer to this.
>>So, failure by honest mistake is to be accepted now?
>
>Yes, of course. You haven't been paying attention.
I was paying attention when SSFA-M supporters/apologists *suggested* that
honest mistakes should be valid excuses for violating the guidelines. I
have yet to see tale's final ruling on it. Has the moderator alias for
SSFA-M been put in place then?
Dean Hougen
--
"Don't use the rules,
They're not for you,
They're for the fools."
- the Clash
Paul Murray
>Todd A. Farmerie <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>>Shrisha Rao wrote:
>>Except for the part which said:
>>>We, the proponents of the newsgroup, would like to request you to vote
>>>YES when the CFV is posted.
>>Hardly the neutral pointer that is expected.
>Again, this is during the RFD phase and unless he'd been reading the
>fat acceptance discussion in the last couple of weeks how could he
>have known people are trying to change the rules again? You can't
>very well expect someone to read all the threads.
Come on Jay.
Paraphrasing:
"We've finished the discussion phase for the group, the CFV is going
to come out shortly. When it does, please find it and vote
YES. Remember, it is too late for any discussions now."
If that isn't improper campaigning (by the proponent no less) then
what is, for God's sake?
Where *have* you hidden the real Jay?
-Paul Murray
Jay Denebeim
Paul Murray <murra...@usa.net> wrote:
>Come on Jay.
>Paraphrasing:
>"We've finished the discussion phase for the group, the CFV is going
>to come out shortly. When it does, please find it and vote
>YES. Remember, it is too late for any discussions now."
>
>If that isn't improper campaigning (by the proponent no less) then
>what is, for God's sake?
>
>Where *have* you hidden the real Jay?
This was never an issue before the CFV until the SSAFM vote. It has
always been distribution of filled out ballots that was the problem.
Shrisha Rao
Todd A. Farmerie <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>your posting. News flash - there are no published Rules of Conduct.
>Its a lot more subtle than that. There are DOs and DON'Ts, and a lot of
>grey areas. The more you impinge on the grey areas, the more you raise
>the hackles of people in news.groups.
Several of my proposals have; that's not something I particularly fear or
try to avoid (contrary to all the publicity about my being "under the
radar," etc.). And here's a news flash for you: no rules would mean, ipso
facto, no rule violation.
All that the present proposal needs is time. Whether the result arrives
with this vote, or a future vote, or next week, or next month, or next
year, it will be no different in substance; the delay is insignificant in
comparison with the life of a newsgroup, and hence means no sweat for me.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
David Mescher
> >>No rules were broken. There is no reason to invalidate anything.
> >
> >Maybe, maybe not. That is what tale needs to decide.
Tale was recuperating from his accident at the time when the RESULT
for ssfam, [and news of said accident had not gotten out], so the
impetus
for holding off the RESULT posting wasn't there, and he wasn't available
to turn off the autopilot, either. Or tell the votetaker for that
matter.
In past cases, when a vote has been disputed, the votetaker still posted
the RESULT in a timely fashion, and Tale blocked the newgroup message
while he was reviewing. No Tale, no way to stop the pipe.
I think it hardly sets a precedent, at this point. [Now, if Tale lets
the ssfam vote stand, and /states/ it stands, then there's a precedent.
But not before.]
> on posting the results, which is what started the automated process of
> sending the newgroup. If you don't want the diamond bracelet you just
> dropped in the toilet to be flushed down the pipes, then don't push the
> handle. You don't flush the toilet and only then start trying to grab
> the bracelet before it dissappears, unless you really did want it to
> wind up in the sewer.
Normally, Tale would have stopped the pipe on his own for ssfam,
however,
he wasn't able to do so.
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In article <37BB64...@po.cwru.edu>,
> Todd A. Farmerie <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>
> >your posting. News flash - there are no published Rules of Conduct.
> >Its a lot more subtle than that. There are DOs and DON'Ts, and a lot of
> >grey areas. The more you impinge on the grey areas, the more you raise
> >the hackles of people in news.groups.
>
> Several of my proposals have; that's not something I particularly fear or
> try to avoid (contrary to all the publicity about my being "under the
> radar," etc.).
I realize that, as does, I think, everybody here. From what I have
seen, you could probably parade out any group you wanted to and somehow
find the votes for it. That doesn't mean that your actions should be
above comment, or even, when appropriate, condemnation.
> And here's a news flash for you: no rules would mean, ipso
> facto, no rule violation.
Another brilliant logical conclusion, which entirely misses the point.
The only hard and fast Rule is 'don't do anything tale would not
allow'. "No published Rules of Conduct" does not mean the same as "No
standards of acceptable behavior". When this whole process devolves
into a bunch of cyberlawyers playing word games over what is and is not
in a formal set of Rules, I'm out of here.
> All that the present proposal needs is time. Whether the result arrives
> with this vote, or a future vote, or next week, or next month, or next
> year, it will be no different in substance; the delay is insignificant in
> comparison with the life of a newsgroup, and hence means no sweat for me.
So don't sweat it. This discussion is not about your group, per se,
since I suspect that it is a foregone conclusion. It is about the
process itself. I think that what you did will not matter a hill of
beans in the final tally, and that the vote will stand. I also think
that what you did is not a good thing to have proponents do during the
newsgroup creation process, and sets a bad precedent for votes where it
may make a difference.
taf
Shrisha Rao
>> Several of my proposals have; that's not something I particularly fear or
>> try to avoid (contrary to all the publicity about my being "under the
>> radar," etc.).
>
>I realize that, as does, I think, everybody here. From what I have
>seen, you could probably parade out any group you wanted to and somehow
>find the votes for it.
I would not be quite so reckless, but thanks anyway.
>That doesn't mean that your actions should be
>above comment, or even, when appropriate, condemnation.
Agreed, but uniformity of standards is certainly important.
>> And here's a news flash for you: no rules would mean, ipso
>> facto, no rule violation.
>
>Another brilliant logical conclusion, which entirely misses the point.
>The only hard and fast Rule is 'don't do anything tale would not
Now that you mention Tale, it is perhaps worthwhile to observe that Tale
himself did initiate discussion of a past proposal of mine on the
moderators list after its RFD phase, and the reply to my objection in this
regard was stated to be that since said list had a vested interest in the
course of the proposal, and since the CFV had not yet been issued, the
discussion was proper. That precedent certainly would allow a lot worse
than to discourage discussion of the present proposal on the Dvaita list
and point out that it ought to be on news.groups only.
>So don't sweat it. This discussion is not about your group, per se,
>since I suspect that it is a foregone conclusion. It is about the
>process itself. I think that what you did will not matter a hill of
>beans in the final tally, and that the vote will stand. I also think
>that what you did is not a good thing to have proponents do during the
>newsgroup creation process, and sets a bad precedent for votes where it
>may make a difference.
Perhaps so; if so, then there will have to be an explicit something added
to the guidelines in this regard. I have known more than one past
proposal (sci.energy.hydrogen, humanities.language.sanskrit,
soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya, to name a few) which were discussed and
"campaigned" for/against during their RFD phases on relevant mailing
lists, and to date, there has been no suggestion of impropriety. Tale
himself does not seem to regard it as improper (unless he's changed his
mind since the time he objected to a proposal on a mailing list).
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>taf
Paul Murray
>Paul Murray <murra...@usa.net> wrote:
>>Come on Jay.
>>Paraphrasing:
>>"We've finished the discussion phase for the group, the CFV is going
>>to come out shortly. When it does, please find it and vote
>>YES. Remember, it is too late for any discussions now."
>>If that isn't improper campaigning (by the proponent no less) then
>>what is, for God's sake?
>>Where *have* you hidden the real Jay?
>This was never an issue before the CFV until the SSAFM vote. It has
>always been distribution of filled out ballots that was the problem.
Campaigning during the vote has 'always' been accepted as wrong. Yes?
This seems to be blatantly trying to get around that by doing the
campaigning slightly before the CFV actually comes out. That doesn't
make it any less wrong.
On a more general note, is it just me, or has participation and
interest here dropped dramatically here recently, especially among
regulars.
Is it because we finally have an answer to the question 'If tale
vanished tomorrow would anyone notice?', and the answer seems to be
no, at least until something particularly quirky comes up. Results
still get posted, groups still get created, noone ever hears from
tale. Have people just given up?
-Paul Murray
Meg Worley
>On a more general note, is it just me, or has participation and
>interest here dropped dramatically here recently, especially among
>regulars.
I think it's just summer doldrums. Our panties are only
temporarily unwadded; we'll get 'em knotted back up once
it cools off, school starts up, and a few hovering dopey
proposals enter RFD space for real.
(If, by "recently," you meant longer than just a season,
I haven't noticed any diminution of regularity since the
nana split.)
Rage away,
meg
--
m...@steam.stanford.edu Comparatively Literate
Gillam Kerley
Jay Denebeim wrote:
> It's not during the CFV phase. I don't see that this is an issue.
It is a few days before the CFV phase, and makes specific requests
relating to the CFV.
RFD discussion generally takes the form of "This is a great idea" or
other generalities; saying "Vote YES" is campaigning for votes, not
discussion of a proposal.
If someone has to be told which way to vote, they should not be voting.
People who want to use the newsgroup will vote YES without being told to;
campaigning is designed to encourage other people -- uninterested people
-- to vote YES.
GK
Christopher Biow
which has been copied on the RFD, and from which the audience for this
'group will primarily be drawn. I see no problem or need for any
countermeasure against such campaigning, (other than the standard principle
that inappropriate campaigning may spark at least half as many No votes
than Yes).
I actually *would* suggest that Shrisha have the votetaker post pointers to
India-D and VMS.
Gillam Kerley
Shrisha Rao wrote:
> However, I do hope for the sakes
> of the votetaker's (and the voters') time that Tale decides to uphold
> the present vote; when the results are published, it will become
> apparent that there simply aren't enough NO votes to justify the
> thought that the result would be any different next time.
The question -- in my mind at least -- will be whether there will be enough
YES votes from people who actually intend to use the newsgroup, as opposed
to people who just voted yes because Shrisha Rao told them to. Given the
complete absence of interest in this proposal during the RFD phase, there
is no evidence to suggest that anyone with an interest in this topic even
knows what Usenet is (other than the proponent of course). A vote
conducted without campaigning could have proven me wrong, but that vote has
now been contaminated by the proponent.
GK
David Mescher
> In article <37BC1B1A...@nortelnetworks.com>,
> David Mescher <dmes...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> >John Stanley wrote:
> >> The decision was made when tale did not tell the vote taker to hold off
> >Tale was recuperating from his accident at the time when the RESULT
> >for ssfam, [and news of said accident had not gotten out], so the
> >impetus
> was said he was planning on reviewing it. That was before his accident,
Still, you don't plan on accidents. Yes, I'm sure Tale could have
reviewed the RESULT posting before it was officially posted, but
he wasn't intending to spinout on his bike, either. And if I recall
from other disputed votes, Tale will still make a statement on
the vote, whether or not it stands. He has made no such statement,
therefore, no precedent.
> and before the end of the vote. Instead of telling the vote taker to
> withold posting the results so they would not trigger the automatic
Why would he do that? He intended to be there to stop it if
necessary.
> newgroup process, tale let the process begin, knowing that it would
> produce a newgroup message unless he stopped it, and with the common
> knowledge that we all have that stuff happens and he might not be able
> to stop it.
You don't plan on vehicle accidents. If YOU do, that's one thing.
But a vast majority of people do not make extensive contingency plans
to handle being in motor vehicle accidents. Hindsight is 20/20.
> >[Now, if Tale lets
> >the ssfam vote stand, and /states/ it stands, then there's a precedent.
> >But not before.]
> By not telling the vote taker to suspend posting the result, he made it
> clear that reviewing the result was not important. You don't start a
No, he didn't. You're reading too much into things. The usual
procedure, as I recall, was for the RESULT posting to go up, any
questions regarding irregularities are asked (and handled) then by
USENET
at large, and then a decision is made. [Also includes missing and
duplicate votes, which means the RESULT posting must be done.]
> process that you know you might not be able to stop if the result isn't
> something you want to happen. If you don't know whether you want the
> results to happen, you simply don't start the process until you decide.
Tale did not intend to get into an accident. From how the vote has been
handled, he made no contigency plans for being unexpectedly away from
the net.
> >Normally, Tale would have stopped the pipe on his own for ssfam,
> >however, he wasn't able to do so.
> And the reason he didn't stop the result from being put into the pipe,
> when he was allegedly going to review the result anyway was...?
The RESULT posting, AFAIK, had not yet gone into the pipe, so it
couldn't
be stopped by the usual means. Why change a procedure for no reason,
from a pre-accident POV?
Jay Denebeim
Paul Murray <murra...@usa.net> wrote:
>Campaigning during the vote has 'always' been accepted as wrong. Yes?
Well, er... no, not really. It's gotten alot more strict since I
started reading. This is due to some really slimy stuff going on.
Before the white-power vote really things were pretty layed back.
Kathy Pascoe
>
> According to Russ, tale knew about the complaints about the vote and
> was said he was planning on reviewing it. That was before his
As I sheesh yet again, may I ask how high a priority a hobby of yours
might be while recuperating from two broken legs?
--
Kathy Pascoe ~ kpa...@ford.com (work) ~ ka...@scconsult.com (home)
David Mescher
> In article <37BC4C07...@nortelnetworks.com>,
> David Mescher <dmes...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> >John Stanley wrote:
> >> According to Russ, tale knew about the complaints about the vote and
> >> was said he was planning on reviewing it. That was before his accident,
> whether or not a certain thing happens, you don't trigger an automatic
> process that results in it happening. You decide if you want the
> resulting action before you trigger the system to do it.
His usual procedure (IIRC) is that the RESULT posting is always posted
first, and then the newgroup msg is removed from the queue. Up until
now, it's always worked fine.
> >Yes, I'm sure Tale could have
> >reviewed the RESULT posting before it was officially posted, but
> >he wasn't intending to spinout on his bike, either.
> That's why you do not start the automatic process if you know that you
> are just going to stop it, because you may not be able to stop it.
Let me explain this AGAIN:
Most likely, he intended to stop the process normally, as he always
has on other disputed votes, which is after the RESULT posting has
been done. Why [up until now] should he have done anything differently?
Lemme posit this situation:
Let's say you're administering a system locally & remotely. You can
dial in
from home if need be, even though you live out in the boondocks. You
are the only admin with access to this system.
You check the logs every morning, as is proper for an admin. You
put together some usage statistics, or traffic analysis, or something
similar on a daily basis. However, there is the occasional day
that you aren't there [like weekends], so you set up retention for
5 or 7 or 10 days. Which has always been enough in the past.
September 1996 in NC rolls around. Biggest friggin hurricane in the
past 30 years comes rolling through. Trees fall over. Power lines
fall over. Phone lines and switches go nuts. You are out in the
boondocks.
The power is out, the phone is out, and you don't have a cellphone.
Incidentally, the only road you have out of your house is blocked by
about 10-15 old growth trees, and your chainsaw just broke.
You're now stuck out here for at least two weeks until you have some
services. This is the only time in the past 30 years that a similar
weather disaster has come through.
Incidentally, because you can't reach anybody, you lose a week of data.
Should your system have anticipated hurricanes?
> >And if I recall
> >from other disputed votes, Tale will still make a statement on
> >the vote, whether or not it stands. He has made no such statement,
> >therefore, no precedent.
> His action is his statement, just as his action on every other vote is
> his statement. He does not normally make a statement on a vote, he just
> sends the newgroup, just like this time.
On every /DISPUTED/ Result posting, he has made a statement, IIRC.
Normally, there are no disputes, hence normally, Tale stays quiet.
This vote is disputed. Tale has not made a statement regarding it.
Therefore, no precedent. Or more accurately, he can set one. The
creation of the group hasn't been finished yet, as the main mod-address
pointer has not been set up yet.
> >> and before the end of the vote. Instead of telling the vote taker to
> >> withold posting the results so they would not trigger the automatic
> >Why would he do that?
> So that it would not trigger the automatic newgroup message if he was
> distracted or any of a thousand other things happened that prevented him
> from stopping the process. Seems logical.
To date, I don't think Tale has had an unplanned absence exceeding the
5 day limit. And I'm sure he has some degree of redundancy as well.
And again, if the only emergencies that can keep you offline for
more than 5 days are such awful things as car accidents, major
weather phenomena, or other things of similar magnitude, you really
don't build a contingency plan for those. Why would you? In most
of those, chances are that the server would be down anyway.
Do you plan on the possibility of being mauled by wildlife preventing
you from performing your duties?
> >But a vast majority of people do not make extensive contingency plans
> >to handle being in motor vehicle accidents. Hindsight is 20/20.
> In this case, "extensive contingency plans" is telling the vote taker
> not to post the results. Not hard to do. Not extensive. Not much
> planning at all, really.
Previously, when similar disputed votes have occured, there has been
no need to tell the votetaker not to post the RESULT. Why? Because
he's been there to intervene in the usual fashion.
> >at large, and then a decision is made. [Also includes missing and
> >duplicate votes, which means the RESULT posting must be done.]
> The complaint about this vote had nothing to do with missing or
> duplicate votes. Claiming that this result had to be posted because the
> objection was missing or duplicate votes is poppycock.
[This section is from a pre-accident POV]
Why intervene in an abnormal way when normal objections may also be
raised? It's worked 100% of the time so far. Why change something
that isn't broken?
It's broken now, because of previously unforseen circumstances.
We're all human, we don't plan for everything.
> >Tale did not intend to get into an accident.
> You keep saying this as if it meant something. The accident happened
> after it became clear that an objection was going to be raised. There
> was plenty of time before the accident to stop the process.
It does mean something. You're being deliberately dense. From a
pre-accident POV, there had been no need for very-serious contingencies,
so why change a perfectly functioning process?
> >> And the reason he didn't stop the result from being put into the pipe,
> >> when he was allegedly going to review the result anyway was...?
> >The RESULT posting, AFAIK, had not yet gone into the pipe, so it
> >couldn't be stopped by the usual means.
> That's right, it hadn't gone into the pipe yet. That's why it was
> possible to stop if from being put into the pipe. And the reason he
> didn't stop it from being put into the pipe was...?
Because he was most likely going to intervene the normal way. And
the normal way is probably better, so ALL objections to the vote
can be handled at once. More efficient.
> Why couldn't it be stopped? If you were the vote taker and you got
> email from tale saying "I am going to be reviewing this vote, please
> send the result to me but do not post it", would you say "screw you,
> I'm posting it anyway"? Unless that is how you would respond, that
> would be just one way of stopping the result from being put into the
> pipe. A pretty simple way.
That wouldn't make sense from an efficiency point of view, as there
can be objections after the RESULT posting, so why not get them all
out of the way at one time?
> >Why change a procedure for no reason, from a pre-accident POV?
> Because the procedure is designed assuming there will be no objection,
> and that tale will always be around to stop what shouldn't happen, and
This is the key assumption.
> for this vote, there was an objection and he wasn't here to deal with
> it. That means the procedure is wrong, and needs to be changed -- for
> all votes.
Hindsight is 20/20. Now we can see a need for it. I'm not saying the
process shouldn't be changed. I'll agree with you that a change
is needed. I'm saying no precedent has been set, due to the
extraordinary
circumstances surrounding it.
> It's not like we are talking about thousands of results per week to
> review. We're talking about 4 or 5. So, post results on Friday. On the
> following Friday, tale reads the objections, if any, and if not, sends
> the results to the automated newgrouper. So instead of letting the
> software make the decision for him, he has to make a decision on each
> group. That's what he is there for.
I agree with you that that's what should be done. [Heck, I thought that
was how it was done in the first place.] However, if I were in his
shoes, I probably would have done something similar regarding the
automation.
> And before the whiners start complaining that I am creating work for
> tale, if he doesn't want to do that, I will.
Give him a break. Let him recover. The vote can still be revoked,
at this point.
Shrisha Rao
Gillam Kerley <gke...@execpc.com> wrote:
>The question -- in my mind at least -- will be whether there will be enough
>YES votes from people who actually intend to use the newsgroup, as opposed
>to people who just voted yes because Shrisha Rao told them to. Given the
Every one of those people will be on Usenet simply because the list is
gated. Also, over the course of a few months, we will disband the
list almost entirely and move the traffic over to Usenet. That was
the whole idea.
>complete absence of interest in this proposal during the RFD phase, there
>is no evidence to suggest that anyone with an interest in this topic even
>knows what Usenet is (other than the proponent of course).
That statement does nothing except display your ignorance of past
Vaishnava/Hindu/Indian votes. The Dvaita list has in large measure
received a boost because of SRV's dissolution, and whether you believe
it or not, most of its people know what Usenet is, than you very much.
>A vote conducted without campaigning could have proven me wrong, but that
>vote has now been contaminated by the proponent.
I completely fail to see how. There is no rule that campaigning prior
to the CFV is wrong; in fact, there was plenty of NO campaigning from
people who announced they were voting NO during the CFV -- or is it
that only YES campaigning is wrong?
Also, may I draw your attention to what the CFVs say:
The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest of
persons who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from
disinterested parties defeats this purpose.
We are, I suppose, meant to read `disinterested' as `uninterested',
but other than that, there is no bar on soliciting votes beforehand
from *interested* parties, and parties who are on a mailing list which
is to be folded up in favor of a newsgroup are certainly the most
interested in said group.
Even if you find none of that convincing, just chew on this -- once
campaigned (if indeed that is what you prefer to call it), the voters
for this group will stay campaigned. You can have another vote, or
best of three, or as many future votes as you like, and that isn't
going to change anything.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>GK
Shrisha Rao
Christopher Biow <bi...@ezmort.com> wrote:
>Prior to the CFV itself, on the list where the pre-RFD process took place,
>which has been copied on the RFD, and from which the audience for this
>'group will primarily be drawn. I see no problem or need for any
>countermeasure against such campaigning, (other than the standard principle
>that inappropriate campaigning may spark at least half as many No votes
>than Yes).
Thank you. It is interesting that the people who're crying wolf now
are essentially the same ones who saw nothing wrong with attempting
discussion of the proposal after the CFV had been issued, violating
the very distinction between RFD and CFV. Funny how they can be so
brazenly holier-than-thou.
>I actually *would* suggest that Shrisha have the votetaker post pointers to
>India-D and VMS.
Beg pardon, but I don't know if that's a proper role for a votetaker,
and in any event, there's just over two hours left of the voting
period as I write this. If by some miracle another RFD has to be
issued for this proposal, I will make sure to post a pre-RFD pointer
there and other places, though. I have refused to take up the cause
of reviving the SRH-reorg for the past year even though such an effort
is direly needed, but in case I ever do, be assured that all the
campaigning will be over before Tale sees the RFD.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Kathy Pascoe
>
> We both know that tale did not have two broken legs when he was made
> aware of the problem with the SSFAM vote. We both know that this was
> before the accident.
Correct.
> There is no possible way that you could be implying that he was
> prevented from asking Neil to withhold posting the result until he
> could review it because of two broken legs.
Also correct.
> There is no possible way you could be implying that he had two broken
> legs and then had his motorcycle accident.
Also also correct.
I'll stop implying, ok?
Tale apparently has a standard process.
1. Result is posted.
2. Are there problems with the vote/result?
a. No; newgroup automatically sent.
b. Yes; automatic newgroup is held, pending review of
complaints.
Sometime between 'Result is posted' and 'Let's review the complaints',
the accident occurred (unless I have been dreadfully remiss in my
reading comprehension). Because of the seriousness of the accident,
there was apparently very little opportunity for tale to address
anything other than his recovery, prior to the auto-newgroup process
he's had in place for (I'm assuming) years. There was absolutely no
reason to believe that there would be a significant hiccup to prevent
him from stopping the auto-newgroup. Were I in a serious accident
and/or hospitalized, a dramatic shift in my priorities would likely occur, at
least for the first few days.
I'm aware you're unhappy with what's happened, and I understand that
you would have preferred that no auto-newgrouping be a part of the
process. But they have been, and since addressing Usenet administrivia
could not possibly be described as anywhere near the top ten things to
worry about after a serious accident, I do not understand why you are
harping on what cannot be changed.
Let the man recover and get back to handling his responsibilities. Then
ask if the auto-newgroup can be discarded in favor of appointing a
backup (such as Russ) who can handle a few more of the nan moderator
responsibilities. I suspect that would be more likely to garner
results.
Gillam Kerley
John Stanley wrote:
>
> We both know that tale did not have two broken legs when he was made
> aware of the problem with the SSFAM vote. We both know that this was
> before the accident. There is no possible way that you could be implying
> that he was prevented from asking Neil to withhold posting the result
> until he could review it because of two broken legs. There is no
> possible way you could be implying that he had two broken legs and then
> had his motorcycle accident.
The posting of the result is what triggers the 5-day procedual complaints
period. If the result is not posted, there is no opportunity to make formal
complaints, and no opportunity for Tale to rule on them.
Unfortunately, the posting of the result appears to also trigger the
newgroup message, unless Tale takes some affirmative action to block that
process. Having a group created if the vote passes is a logical default
position, except in those rare instances in which Tale is incapacitated.
GK
Joe Bernstein
David Mescher <dmes...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> On every /DISPUTED/ Result posting, he has made a statement, IIRC.
He has? What is your definition of "disputed"?
> To date, I don't think Tale has had an unplanned absence exceeding the
> 5 day limit. And I'm sure he has some degree of redundancy as well.
In early 1997, news.announce.newgroups typically ran on a twice-a-week
posting schedule, as best I recall. This implies that if no new RFDs
appeared in a week, a five-day absence was one possible explanation.
On April 11, 1997, I posted to the effect that no new RFDs had appeared
in news.announce.newgroups since March 19, 1997. There were at that
time ten CFVs listed on the UVV report as having been submitted but
not posted. On April 12, 1997, I believe sixteen RFDs appeared in
news.announce.newgroups, as well as, one presumes, ten CFVs.
Now, it is not *necessarily* the case that this reflects an unplanned
or unprovided-for absence, but that is by *far* the most parsimonious
explanation of the facts.
It's worth noting that towards the end of that period nan was being
cancelled wholesale. Rebecca McQuitty, then a fairly active votetaker,
watched this for several days and finally, fed up, started resurrecting
posts herself. Her resurrected posts were cancelled because they lacked
proper approvals.
Shortly after April 12, the most recent of the posts that had been
cancelled in nan were resurrected, presumably by tale.
Not very long after that, the appointment of Russ Allbery as an assistant
to tale in moderating news.announce.newgroups was announced.
Again, I'm sure there could be some explanation other than a recent
absence for these turns of events and their timing, but I'm not at
all sure there could be a more plausible one.
> And again, if the only emergencies that can keep you offline for
> more than 5 days are such awful things as car accidents, major
> weather phenomena, or other things of similar magnitude, you really
> don't build a contingency plan for those. Why would you? In most
> of those, chances are that the server would be down anyway.
(Really? Where you come from, people don't get sick for a week at
a time? Or their servers go down when they do?)
> Do you plan on the possibility of being mauled by wildlife preventing
> you from performing your duties?
I guess I come at this from a couple of weird perspectives. One is
that I work temporary, so I see an awful lot of workplaces. It's true
that at many of them, people do *not* make contingency plans. In fact,
I've found over the years that people often *hate* to deal with the
reality of co-workers leaving the job; at one job (not a temp job, I'd
been there two years), I actually had to get my boss to *order* my
replacement to spend ten minutes walking around with me so she'd know
where the files were.
But it's also my observation that many workplaces *do* encourage the
making of contingency plans. Now of course Usenet is not a workplace,
but still.
I come at this from another weird perspective, which is that I've led
an *extremely* chaotic life over the past several years, the ones in
which I've been active on Usenet. For a year and a half, up til a
year ago, I literally lived in a Skid Row hotel. I've not had a home
telephone for nearly two years, and have usually logged in during that
time via library telnets. I find myself feeling a great deal of
sympathy for tale over the part of his explanation of his accident
in which he bemoans the way things never seem to settle down to
normality for him and his wife.
But I *have* made earnest efforts to ensure that the duties I assume,
on the nets and elsewhere, should be such that my life's chaos cannot
cause serious harm to others. Unfortunately it appears that the chaos
in tale's life appeared only after his duties had already expanded to
a considerable degree from what he originally volunteered for, and it's
not particularly surprising that he wasn't prepared for that.
I do question, however, your assertions that the current turn of events
could not possibly have been anticipated. In my posting of April 11,
1997, I mentioned *two* extended silences in nan over the preceding
months, and one before that, none of them announced. In my posting
of April 11, 1997, I also mentioned that RESULT postings had continued
to appear. I thought I'd have to play some with DejaNews to figure
out whether any of them had been disputed, but it turns out to be
fairly easy; there was *extensive* dispute over the failure of
soc.culture.kashmir (unmoderated), a RESULT which appeared March 20,
1997, and which tale has never to my knowledge commented upon in public.
Joe Bernstein
David Matthewman
John Stanley wrote in message <7phnot$hl$1...@news.NERO.NET>...
>
>But this has all changed now that SSFAM has passed. It isn't written
>down anywhere so it is not a rule anyone has to follow.
Ah, *That's* the precedent you took away from the s.s.f-a.m vote then, I
assume? Fair enough, if that's the one you want to see, and if that's the
one that will serve you well in the future.
However, I took a different precedent away from the discussion on that vote.
I took away the precedent that if any wrongdoing does not appear to have
affected the outcome of the vote - that in other words there's very strong
reason to believe that there *is* enough interest to sustain the group -
then all other things being equal the vote should be allowed to stand.
Which precedent survives is a matter of which one people choose to follow in
future, but I do think the one I see has more chance of keeping the voting
system sane, while the one you see has more chance of allowing you to trace
the eventual collapse of Usenet to tale's (now implied AFAICT) decision to
let the s.s.f-.m vote stand. I suspect that this suits us both fine, in
fact.
--
David Matthewman
Shrisha Rao
Igor <ig...@Algebra.Com> wrote:
>Shrisha Rao <sh...@junk.nyx.net> wrote:
>* Funny how they can be so
>* brazenly holier-than-thou.
>
>There is nothing wrong with discussing CFVs. I am certainly
>holier than thou, too.
I'm sure you are, my dear Igor, although sadly, it will take more than the
two dozen or so votes that you cast against soc.culture.belarus to make
that known, and although your grasp of idiomatic English isn't quite what
it should be.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>igor
Dean Hougen
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>What neutral pointer? When a CFV is posted to the mailing list, there
>is no pointer to the CFV.
Where is this rule written?
>... There is no reason for a pointer of any kind
>when you have the real, honest to goodness CFV handed to you in your
>mailbox without even asking for it.
You've never heard of a reminder notice?
Dean Hougen
--
"I'm ringing to say that I've leaving today." - Pink Floyd
Russ Allbery
> On a more general note, is it just me, or has participation and interest
> here dropped dramatically here recently, especially among regulars.
Well, I don't know about everyone else, but I'm having some burnout
problems, mostly related to the fact that all of the proposals for
changing things require really intense amounts of work that it doesn't
seem possible to delegate and that I also can't seem to find time to do.
I think that's a not uncommon feeling.
A bunch of regulars really need to get together, present a coherent and
unified proposal for specific changes, including documentation, and take
it to tale. Every time we discuss anything, it gets bogged down in a
bunch of minutia that's frankly really tiring. At some point, someone
who's a recognized news.groups regular and knows all of the various
arguments involved needs to spearhead matters, pick something, and run it
through to completion.
I've tried to do that a few times and not managed to successfully devote
the necessary resources to see it through. I feel really bad about that,
but realistically it also doesn't seem to be changing. The amount of time
I've been able to find to devote to rewriting the rules has been dropping
drastically in recent months as I've been taking on more and more
responsibilities in other areas (primarily things at Stanford completely
unrelated to Usenet), not to mention that my primary interest always has
and still does lie in the realm of news *software*, not news *politics*
and when I have free time, given the choice between writing code and
writing rules, I'll normally choose to write code.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery
>> Come on Jay.
>> Paraphrasing:
>> "We've finished the discussion phase for the group, the CFV is going
>> to come out shortly. When it does, please find it and vote
>> YES. Remember, it is too late for any discussions now."
>> If that isn't improper campaigning (by the proponent no less) then what
>> is, for God's sake?
>> Where *have* you hidden the real Jay?
> This was never an issue before the CFV until the SSAFM vote. It has
> always been distribution of filled out ballots that was the problem.
That's simply not true, Jay.
Jay Denebeim
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us> writes:
>> This was never an issue before the CFV until the SSAFM vote. It has
>> always been distribution of filled out ballots that was the problem.
>
>That's simply not true, Jay.
Oh? I musta been asleep during this then. Yes we *encourage* people
to only post pointers to the newsgroup's discussion, but it has never
been a requirement. Also AFAIK things that happened before the CFV
have never affected the vote's result.
In this specific case, I get the impression that the proponant has
been through this before and knew which bases to touch, and what
wasn't legit. Therefore it's the ground that moved rather than him.
Russ Allbery
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us> writes:
>>> This was never an issue before the CFV until the SSAFM vote. It has
>>> always been distribution of filled out ballots that was the problem.
Ack, I'm sorry, I parsed that incorrectly. I got confused by the mention
of the SSAFM vote, where the message was sent during the CFV. You're
talking about campaigning before the CFV? Right, that's never been an
issue before that I can remember.
Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Paul Murray
>Paul Murray <murra...@usa.net> writes:
>> On a more general note, is it just me, or has participation and interest
>> here dropped dramatically here recently, especially among regulars.
>unified proposal for specific changes, including documentation, and take
>it to tale. Every time we discuss anything, it gets bogged down in a
>bunch of minutia that's frankly really tiring. At some point, someone
I've noticed more recently that we discuss something and it gets to
the stage of 'Yes, that's a good idea, pity we can't do anything about
it.'
>who's a recognized news.groups regular and knows all of the various
>arguments involved needs to spearhead matters, pick something, and run it
>through to completion.
>I've tried to do that a few times and not managed to successfully devote
>the necessary resources to see it through. I feel really bad about that,
>but realistically it also doesn't seem to be changing. The amount of time
>I've been able to find to devote to rewriting the rules has been dropping
>drastically in recent months as I've been taking on more and more
>responsibilities in other areas (primarily things at Stanford completely
>unrelated to Usenet), not to mention that my primary interest always has
>and still does lie in the realm of news *software*, not news *politics*
>and when I have free time, given the choice between writing code and
>writing rules, I'll normally choose to write code.
But how many other people who would been seen as impartial enough to
have a chance of suceeding?
-Paul Murray
Jon Bell
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>A bunch of regulars really need to get together, present a coherent and
>unified proposal for specific changes, including documentation, and take
>it to tale. Every time we discuss anything, it gets bogged down in a
>bunch of minutia that's frankly really tiring. At some point, someone
>arguments involved needs to spearhead matters, pick something, and run it
>through to completion.
I'd be interested in putting together a small group to hash out a draft of
a set of rules or guidelines on "campaigning" and related issues, if
there's nothing in the currently-on-hold revised "Newsgroup Creation
Companion" that addresses this. Unfortunately, *right*now* is a bad time
for me, because I'm approaching the beginning of fall semester. September
may have lost most of its former significance to Usenet, but it most
certainly still is significant to us academics.
If anyone else is interested, drop me a short note and in a few weeks I'll
try to get something started. I'd like to have a range of viewpoints
represented, and I'd also like to have someone from the UVV.
This group would be just for brainstorming and writing an initial draft;
we'd bring it to news.groups for more general discussion and revise it if
appropriate. If there are points that cause serious disagreement in the
group, my inclination now would be to prepare alternative versions of the
affected paragraphs and find out what the general sentiment is here.
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
[ Information about newsgroups for beginners: ]
[ http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/6882/ ]
Kathy Pascoe
>
> As I sheesh yet again, may I ask how high a priority a hobby of yours
> might be while recuperating from two broken legs?
It has come to my attention that Mr. Stanley interpreted both this
message and <news:37BC76AD...@ford.com> as suggesting that I felt
_he_ was due two broken legs. I had, of course, intended to refer only
to how tale's priorities might have changed in light of a serious
accident.
I have no intention of following up to or emailing Mr. Stanley in the
future, to head off any future potential misunderstandings. If I
become forgetful and do so, might someone please smack me upside the
head (figuratively, of course)? Thanks very much.
Meg Worley
Kathy writes:
>I have no intention of following up to or emailing Mr. Stanley in the
>future, to head off any future potential misunderstandings. If I
>become forgetful and do so, might someone please smack me upside the
>head (figuratively, of course)? Thanks very much.
Nah -- we'll come break both your legs.
Kathy Pascoe
>
> Kathy writes:
> >I have no intention of following up to or emailing Mr. Stanley in the
> >future, to head off any future potential misunderstandings. If I
> >become forgetful and do so, might someone please smack me upside the
> >head (figuratively, of course)? Thanks very much.
>
> Nah -- we'll come break both your legs.
Could you wait until after the baby? Might make labor a tad difficult
to get through.
'preciate the thought, though :).
David Matthewman
John Stanley wrote in message <7pspg4$png$1...@kira.peak.org>...
>
>That is patently untrue. If you recall carefully, or maybe if you use a
>threading newsreader, you will find that I mentioned my interpretation
>of your comment in an article _to which you replied_. Specifically:
>
>]When someone asks me how high a priority USENET would be for me if I
>]had two broken legs, that's not just a difference of opinion anymore.
>
>It didn't "come to your attention", I said it right in front of your
>face, in an article you responded to. You did not bother trying to
>clear up this "misunderstanding" at that time. You let it stand,
>despite responding to other parts of the article.
Well, that wasn't how *I* interpreted your comment. I didn't quite know what
to make of it, actually, but it never crossed my mind that you thought Kathy
was threatening you.
>You made it clear that you were not referring to tale, because in every
>statement I made pointing out that you could not be referring to him,
>you agreed I was correct.
No. She made it clear that, despite your objections, she *was* referring to
tale. She agrred that tale did not have two broken legs when he was made
aware of the problems with the SSFAM vote. She agreed that he wasn't
prevented from asking Neil to withold posting the result of the vote by two
broken legs. She agreed that she wasn't implying that he had two broken legs
before the accident.
She then said:
> I'll stop implying, ok?
>
> Tale apparently has a standard process.
>
> 1. Result is posted.
> 2. Are there problems with the vote/result?
> a. No; newgroup automatically sent.
> b. Yes; automatic newgroup is held, pending review of
> complaints.
>
> Sometime between 'Result is posted' and 'Let's review the complaints',
> the accident occurred (unless I have been dreadfully remiss in my
> reading comprehension...
...and quite a bit more that's less relevant.
In other words, she explained that she *was* talking about tale, even given
that your assumtions about what she was implying were correct.
>And, if you use a threading newsreader, you will find that I responded to
>your agreement with:
>
>]Then your comment about how much I would enjoy my hobbies if I had two
>]broken legs was what I thought it was.
>
>You did not respond at all to that article, although you could have
>tried clearing up the problem then. You did not.
What problem needed clearing up? You didn't bother to say at the time what
you thought Kathy's comment was. Given what Kathy had said in her posting,
it was completely clear that she had been talking about tale. How was anyone
else to know that you thought any different?
--
David
Gillam Kerley
John Stanley wrote:
>
> How dare you come here acting as if you are the victim, whining about
> how something "came to your attention" and how you intended something
> that you made clear was not your intention at all, when you had more
> than ample opportunity to clear it up if you really did mean somthing
> other than what you wrote. If you didn't mean it, the time to post the
> correction was when you first saw the error -- but you chose not to.
> Now all it looks like is that you are trying to cover your ass with
> your employer and take a pot shot at me on the way by.
HUH?
John, are you implying that you complained to Kathy's employer about her
posts? If that's the case, you're a much sicker puppy than I had ever
imagined.
It was obvious to everyone else that Kathy was asking you to emphathize with
Tale when she said, in essence, "Put yourself in Tale's position. What would
you have done in you broke both your legs in an accident? Would your first
thought have been Usenet?"
Your cryptic replies were odd, but no odder than many of your other
argumentative posts. As David said, given the ludicrous nature of your
interpretation and the lack of clarity in your innuendo, neither Kathy or
anyone else could have been expected to understand that you thought you were
being threatened.
Your Q&A (to which Kathy responded that you were correct) was premised on the
silly notion that the Results should not be posted if there is a question
about their validity. As Kathy and I both pointed out, it is the posting of
the Results that initiates the formal complaint period; if there are no
Results, there can be no formal complaints for Tale to review. Taking your
questions at face value, there was no reason to think that you were trying to
establish that she was discussing someone other than Tale, only that you
thought Tale should have stopped the process before the Results were posted,
when he was still in good health.
As for your statement:
]Then your comment about how much I would enjoy my hobbies if I had two
]broken legs was what I thought it was.
You are the only one who knew that you thought her comment was, unless we
have psychics among us. No one else could have expected you to be harboring
the delusional notion that the Usenet Volunteer Legbreakers would soon be
knocking on your door. (AFAIK, the UVL has even more trouble getting members
than the UVV.)
It is quite obvious that you enjoy recreational argument. But taking your
hobby into Kathy's real life is going too far. You owe her and her employer
an apology, IMO.
GK
Gillam Kerley
John Stanley wrote:
> When
> someone starts asking me how I would react to two broken legs, that is
> well beyond the difference of opinion stage. I don't care what spin you
> want to put on it after the fact, that kind of threat is not acceptable.
> Period, end of sentence.
When you complain about the way someone who *did* have two broken legs reacted, I
see nothing improper, unreasonable, or threatening about asking you how you would
react to the same circumstance. It was not a threat. Period, end of sentence.
> I consider threats to break legs to be going too far; I said that to her face in public
> -- and she made the decision not to correct any misinterpretation.
>
No you didn't. You never used the word "threat" or any synonym thereof, or
anything else that would indicate to a reader that you viewed it as a threat.
"Not just a difference of opinion" and "what I thought it was" are not synonyms
for "threat".
>
> I'll make you deal. When you get threatened, you can react how you
> think appropriate. Don't tell me how I am supposed to react.
Oooooooh. That sounds like a threat to threaten me and Belinda. At least it
sounds as much like one as anything Kathy wrote. In fact, you're using
*exactly* the same rhetorical technique that Kathy used -- asking us to step into
your shoes and decide how we would respond in your situation. You didn't even
say "if", you said "when", meaning you have made a definite decision to threaten
us. (Are you even beginning to see the illogic of your position, John?)
>
> Now, honor the followups. Unless you want to drag this out as long
> as you can for whatever fun you think you are getting out of it.
You posted to news.groups, John; as long as you're posting here, I will follow up
here. Your followup was wrong, anyhow. It should have been alt.usenet.kooks,
assuming they accept self-referrals.
GK
David Matthewman
John Stanley wrote in message <7pvdth$hfo$1...@kira.peak.org>...
>In article <7pv3p5$jlt$2...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Belinda <bel...@lart.com> wrote:
>>In article <7put82$3...@newsops.execpc.com>, Gillam Kerley
>><gke...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
>Two people who deliberately ignored the followups set on a discussion
>that they weren't a part of and are joining in just to see how long
>they can keep it alive. A fine USENET tradition.
Yes, it is, isn't it? As is the tradition of someone setting follow-ups
elsewhere so that they can have the last word. Where *would* we be without
our traditions, eh?
>>>John, are you implying that you complained to Kathy's employer about her
>>>posts? If that's the case, you're a much sicker puppy than I had ever
>>>imagined.
>
>I'm not implying it, I said it was something I have not felt
>appropriate to do for a very very long time, but when a discussion goes
>beyond a simple difference of opinion, it needs to be done. When
>someone starts asking me how I would react to two broken legs, that is
>well beyond the difference of opinion stage. I don't care what spin you
>want to put on it after the fact, that kind of threat is not acceptable.
>Period, end of sentence.
It wasn't a threat, to you or anyone else. Period. End of sentence.
>>>...she said, in essence, "Put yourself in Tale's position. What would
>>>you have done in you broke both your legs in an accident? Would your
first
>>>thought have been Usenet?"
>
>That is not what she said, in fact or in essence. Putting quotes around
>it does not make it true. She did not mention tale. She did not mention
>"accident". If that is what she wanted to say, nobody was stopping her,
>and nobody was stopping her from clearing it up on her own. She
>decided not to.
Just so we're clear about this, here is the entire text of Kathy's message:
" John Stanley wrote:
" >
" > According to Russ, tale knew about the complaints about the vote and
" > was said he was planning on reviewing it. That was before his
" > accident, and before the end of the vote. Instead of telling the vote
" > taker to withold posting the results so they would not trigger the
" > automatic newgroup process, tale let the process begin,
"
" As I sheesh yet again, may I ask how high a priority a hobby of yours
" might be while recuperating from two broken legs?
" --
" Kathy Pascoe ~ kpa...@ford.com (work) ~ ka...@scconsult.com (home)
In the part of the message from you that she quotes, you mention tale and
you mention "accident". She quotes you, and is replying to you, and it's
usual practice to regard a quote like that as 'part of the message' because
it can entirely change the context/meaning of the reply. As it does here, at
least to my eyes.
I know how Usenet can get. We all, at some point, misread or misunderstand
something someone else says. If I thought someone was threatening me with
two broken legs, I'd probably have words with at least their ISP. But at
some point I have to step back and say: 'Is it real, or am I imagining
things?' and very often I find that people aren't actually out to get me as
much as I thought.
Now, can you do this, or am I just wasting my breath here?
--
David Matthewman
colette
Stanley) wrote:
] I'm not implying it, I said it was something I have not felt
] appropriate to do for a very very long time, but when a discussion goes
] beyond a simple difference of opinion, it needs to be done. When
] someone starts asking me how I would react to two broken legs, that is
] well beyond the difference of opinion stage. I don't care what spin you
] want to put on it after the fact, that kind of threat is not acceptable.
] Period, end of sentence.
It wasn't a threat, John. It's nearly Kook-worthy of
you to say it was. It's definitely Kook-worthy to contact
her employer over it.
] I didn't take "my hobby" into her real life. It is not my hobby to ask
] people how they would deal with broken legs. She took her own hobby
] into her own real life and into mine. I consider threats to break legs
] to be going too far; I said that to her face in public -- and she made
] the decision not to correct any misinterpretation.
Because the idea that you would think she had
threatened you was so utterly absurd that no one
(including Kathy) thought you were making that
accusation.
] Now, honor the followups. Unless you want to drag this out as long
] as you can for whatever fun you think you are getting out of it.
IMO, you are the one who's made this into a
serious enough thing to be dealt with outside
of alt.flame.
Unless this is just John's Really Big Troll.
--
colette marine
school of education and social policy
northwestern university
c...@nwu.edu
Christopher Biow
sta...@kira.peak.org (John Stanley) wrote:
>Belinda <bel...@lart.com> wrote:
>>Gillam Kerley <gke...@execpc.com> wrote:
>>>In <37BC4DF8...@ford.com> Kathy Pascoe <kpa...@ford.com> wrote:
>>>>In <7phq20$21m$1...@news.NERO.NET> John Stanley wrote:
>>>>> According to Russ, tale knew about the complaints about the vote and
>>>>> was said he was planning on reviewing it. That was before his
>>>>> accident, and before the end of the vote. Instead of telling the vote
>>>>> taker to withold posting the results so they would not trigger the
>>>>> automatic newgroup process, tale let the process begin,
>>>>As I sheesh yet again, may I ask how high a priority a hobby of yours
>>>>might be while recuperating from two broken legs?
>>>John, are you implying that you complained to Kathy's employer about her
>>>posts? If that's the case, you're a much sicker puppy than I had ever
>>>imagined.
>I'm not implying it, I said it was something I have not felt
>appropriate to do for a very very long time, but when a discussion goes
>beyond a simple difference of opinion, it needs to be done. When
>someone starts asking me how I would react to two broken legs, that is
>well beyond the difference of opinion stage. I don't care what spin you
>want to put on it after the fact, that kind of threat is not acceptable.
>Period, end of sentence.
John, in the three years I've been reading news.groups, I've observed your
propensity in debate for responding to wild misinterpretations of what
others have posted. I'd always thought that was a tactic, or merely for
effect. When you concluded the earlier sub-thread with "you were too busy
talking about breaking my legs to notice that, I expect" I'd never imagined
that you could have meant it literally--that you actually had interpreted
Kathy's post as a threat of bodily harm.
Assuming this isn't some bizarre, double-reverse troll, it would appear
that you really did interpret her remark as a threat. That is something
that I find so irrational as to be astounding and incomprehensible.
>>Perhaps John Stanley has gone from Obnoxious Bully to Net Kook.
>Yeah, I am the bully. Sure. I'm the one making threats.
John, this demonstrates that you are simply unable to comprehend the
written English of the sort that is typically used in news.groups debates.
Profoundly unable. Perhaps there may be other times or places where you can
provide a meaningful contribution to written discussion. But not now, in
the context of news.groups. Here you simply stand out as a kook.
>I'll make you deal. When you get threatened, you can react how you
>think appropriate. Don't tell me how I am supposed to react.
>Now, honor the followups. Unless you want to drag this out as long
>as you can for whatever fun you think you are getting out of it.
It's certainly not "fun" realizing that a news.groupie has become paranoid.
I sure hope its not catching.
Simon van Dongen
Since I'm not flaming, John's followup to alt.flame ignored
On or about 24 Aug 1999 17:38:09 -0700, John Stanley wrote:
>I'm not implying it, I said it was something I have not felt
>appropriate to do for a very very long time, but when a discussion goes
>beyond a simple difference of opinion, it needs to be done. When
>someone starts asking me how I would react to two broken legs, that is
>well beyond the difference of opinion stage. I don't care what spin you
>want to put on it after the fact, that kind of threat is not acceptable.
>Period, end of sentence.
Even accepting your way of putting things, asking you how you would
react to two broken legs is, in itself, not a threat.
>>>...she said, in essence, "Put yourself in Tale's position. What would
>>>you have done in you broke both your legs in an accident? Would your first
>>>thought have been Usenet?"
>
>That is not what she said, in fact or in essence. Putting quotes around
>it does not make it true. She did not mention tale. She did not mention
>"accident". If that is what she wanted to say, nobody was stopping her,
>and nobody was stopping her from clearing it up on her own. She
>decided not to.
She didn't 'clear it up' because she didn't notice you had put this
ridiculous spin on your remarks. I wasn't 100% sure *what* your spin
was exactly till the post I'm replying to.
Read my type: she wasn't threatening you. She was inviting you to
consider the possibility that, if you were to be so unfortunate as to
have broken two legs, you might not in that hypothetical case have
other things on your mind than possible irregularities in the voting
for soc.religion.vaishnava.dvaita or even soc.support.fat-acceptance.-
-.moderated. Given the way the discussion was going, that wasn't an
unreasonable thing to ask you at that point.
Counterquestion: why do you think she was threatening you? To get you
to do something? If so, what? To get you to shut up about s.s.f-a.m? I
won't say you haven't been a bore on the subject, but you've never
given any indication that threats might cure that, so why would she?
Just to be unpleasant on general principle? Possible, I suppose, but
hardly likely on a subject of so little importance.
>>> But taking your hobby into Kathy's real life is going too far.
>
>I didn't take "my hobby" into her real life. It is not my hobby to ask
>people how they would deal with broken legs. She took her own hobby
>into her own real life and into mine. I consider threats to break legs
>to be going too far;
Yes, but John, even 'asking people how they would deal with broken
legs' is something quite different from 'threats to break legs'. You
go from one to the other as if they're identical. They aren't.
> I said that to her face in public -- and she made
>the decision not to correct any misinterpretation.
>
You didn't make your misinterpretation very clear to begin with.
>>Perhaps John Stanley has gone from Obnoxious Bully to Net Kook.
>
>Yeah, I am the bully. Sure. I'm the one making threats.
>
>I'll make you deal. When you get threatened, you can react how you
>think appropriate. Don't tell me how I am supposed to react.
>
Yes, but John, everybody including the person you thought threatened
you has assured you that you weren't being threatened. Unless you can
definitively assure us and yourself that you never, ever,
misunderstand Usenet posts, I think it's time you start considering
the possibility that you did so in this case.
>Now, honor the followups. Unless you want to drag this out as long
>as you can for whatever fun you think you are getting out of it.
I might, but I like to be sure people I'm arguing with (which is not
the same as flaming) have a reasonable opportunity to see what I write
and to send a reply that I'll see.
--
Simon van Dongen <sg...@xs4all.nl> Rotterdam, The Netherlands
'Bear courteous greetings to the accomplished musician outside our
gate, [...] and convince him - by means of a heavily-weighted club
if necessary - that the situation he has taken up is quite unworthy
of his incomparable efforts.' -Bramah, 'Kai Lung's Golden Hours'
Kathy I. Morgan
> I consider threats to break legs
> to be going too far; I said that to her face in public -- and she made
> the decision not to correct any misinterpretation.
No, you didn't. What you said was, "Then your comment about how much I
would enjoy my hobbies if I had two broken legs was what I thought it
was." You are the only person who understood what you were trying to
say. None of the rest of us could understand what you were saying, so
you shouldn't be surprised that Kathy didn't.
--
Kathy M
help for new users of newsgroups at <http://www.ptialaska.net/~kmorgan>
Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ejs/gnksa/>
David Matthewman
burbled:
> In article <cdm-250899...@grad4.covis.nwu.edu>,
> colette <c...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>
> >It wasn't a threat, John.
>
> That is exactly what it appeared to be when I read it. From out of the
> blue, I was being asked how I would deal with two broken legs. I have not
> read the full account of tale's accident, so I have no idea what injuries
> he suffered.
But you *did* know tale had had an accident, because you referrred to it
in the posting that Kathy replied to. I can see how the misunderstanding
happened, honestly I can, but I still thing it was a *very* odd way to
read what Kathy said.
> In any case, I was being very explicit in talking about things
> that happened before his accident. What happened in the accident was
> not, and still is not, relevant to the argument I was making.
Well, no, actually, and if you'd read Kathy's reply as closely as you're
making out, you'd know that. The accident happened shortly after the
result had been posted, in the period when tale would normally be
reviewing the circumstances of the vote. The fact that you believe the
result of the vote should have been deferred doesn't change that - in
particular, it should have been clear that while *you* may have been
talking about events that happened before the accident, *Kathy* wasn't.
She said as much in the posting.
> Do I still think it is a threat? No. Does what I think now change
> anything? Of course not.
Actually, it does, at least to me. If you still thought it was a threat
I'd think you were trolling, or being willfully blind. If you now believe
that it wasn't a threat, you've shown more ability to change your mind
than a lot of people on this group, and I rspect you more for it.
Not that I'm expecting that to mean anything to you, of course.
--
David Matthewman