RESULT - UK Usenet Committee Elections 2009
Barry Salter
Result of Call for Votes
UK Usenet Committee Elections 2009
Due to the continued prevalence of viruses and worms the harvest Usenet
posts for e-mail addresses, all e-mail addresses in these results are
modified to prevent this.
Summary:
The following people are elected to serve as Open Members of the UK
Usenet Committee until December 2012:
Graham Drabble
Clive D. W. Feather
Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')
Matthew Vernon
========================================================================
Voting closed at 23:59:59 GMT, 17th November 2009.
Votetaker: Barry Salter <com2k09-queries (at) ukvotes.southie.me.uk>
Secondary Votetaker: Jon Ribbens <j.ribbens (at) ukvoting.org.uk>
========================================================================
Distribution:
These results have been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.net.news.management
========================================================================
The full results follow below in the following order:
1) Information on the Ballot
2) Summary of Mail Received During the Voting Period
3) Results in Detail
4) Voter List
5) Counted Vote List
6) Votetaker's Comments
7) Voting and Appeal Information
8) Copy of Statements from the CFV
======================================================================
Information on the Ballot
Voters were asked to rank the following candidates in order of
preference:
Jonathan Amery Candidate A
David Damerell Candidate B
Graham Drabble Candidate C
Clive D. W. Feather Candidate D
Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat') Candidate E
Ian Jackson Candidate F
Matthew Vernon Candidate G
======================================================================
Summary of Mail Received During the Voting Period
180 messages were received to the Ballot Request Address, of which:
178 were valid Ballot Requests
2 were test messages sent by the votetaker
142 messages were received to the Voting Address, of which:
129 were valid and counted votes
1 was rejected due to the voter omitting their name, though they
did later submit a valid vote
9 valid votes subsequently superseded by the voters
1 was an abstention, thus does not affect the count
1 was a test message sent by the votetaker
1 was a test message sent by a voter
======================================================================
Results in Detail
The election was conducted using the Single Transferable Vote method of
voting, with the count carried out under the Electoral Reform Society's
1997 (3rd Edition) rules.
The STV analysis is as follows:
UK Usenet Committee Elections 2009
Stage 1
Total Votes Cast: 130
Invalid Votes: 1
Total Valid Vote: 129
Places to be filled +1: 5
So Quota = 129/5
Quota = 25.80
First Preferences:
Jonathan Amery : 1
David Damerell : 4
Graham Drabble : 22
Clive D. W. Feather : 61
Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat) : 29
Ian Jackson : 1
Matthew Vernon : 11
Clive D. W. Feather ELECTED
with 61.00
over quota 25.80
Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat') ELECTED
with 29.00
over quota 25.80
Active Vote: 77.40
Places left +1: 3
Vote required for election now: 25.80
Stage 2
No candidates can be excluded, so we transfer the largest surplus
Surplus of Clive D. W. Feather
Jonathan Amery gets 1 paper.
David Damerell gets 3 papers.
Graham Drabble gets 53 papers.
Ian Jackson gets 2 papers.
Matthew Vernon gets 1 paper.
60 papers transferred.
Total Present Value: 60.00
1 paper non-transferable.
Calculating transfer value: 35.20/60
Papers transferred at 0.58
Jonathan Amery now has 1.58 votes.
David Damerell now has 5.74 votes.
Graham Drabble now has 52.74 votes.
Ian Jackson now has 2.16 votes.
Matthew Vernon now has 11.58 votes.
0.40 votes non-transferable.
Graham Drabble ELECTED
with 52.74
over quota 25.80
Active Vote: 51.20
Places left+1: 2
Vote required for election now: 25.60
Stage 3
No candidates can be excluded, so we transfer the largest surplus
Surplus of Graham Drabble
Jonathan Amery gets 4 papers.
David Damerell gets 4 papers.
Ian Jackson gets 4 papers.
Matthew Vernon gets 13 papers.
25 papers transferred.
Total Present Value: 14.50
28 papers non-transferable.
Total current value of transferable papers is less than the surplus, so
these papers are transferred at their current value.
Papers transferred at 0.58
Jonathan Amery now has 1.58 votes.
David Damerell now has 5.74 votes.
Ian Jackson now has 2.16 votes.
Matthew Vernon now has 11.58 votes.
12.44 votes non-transferable.
Active Vote: 38.76
Places left+1: 2
Vote required for election now: 19.38
Stage 4
No candidates can be excluded, so we transfer the largest surplus
Surplus of Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')
Jonathan Amery gets 4 papers.
David Damerell gets 2 papers.
Ian Jackson gets 2 papers.
Matthew Vernon gets 2 papers.
10 papers transferred.
Total Present Value: 10.00
19 papers non-transferable.
Calculating transfer value: 3.20/10
Papers transferred at 0.32
Jonathan Amery now has 5.18 votes.
David Damerell now has 8.70 votes.
Ian Jackson now has 5.12 votes.
Matthew Vernon now has 19.76 votes.
Matthew Vernon ELECTED
with 19.76
over quota 19.38
***Finished***
In grid format, this is expressed as follows:
UK Usenet Committee Elections 2009
Number to be elected: 4 (from 7)
Counted votes: 129
Quota for election on first round: 25.80
1st Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Pref T A T A T A
1 0.58 1.58 2.32 3.90 1.28 5.18 Jonathan Amery
4 1.74 5.74 2.32 8.06 0.64 8.70 David Damerell
22 30.74 52.74 -26.94 25.80 25.80 Elect Graham Drabble
61 -35.20 25.80 25.80 25.80 Elect Clive D. W. Feather
29 29.00 29.00 -3.20 25.80 Elect Fiona Gostling
1 1.16 2.16 2.32 4.48 0.64 5.12 Ian Jackson
11 0.58 11.58 7.54 19.12 0.64 19.76 Elect Matthew Vernon
0.40 0.40 12.44 12.84 12.84 Non-transferable
129 129.00 129.00 129.00 Totals
Key to grid:
Stage 2 - Surplus of Clive D. W. Feather
Stage 3 - Surplus of Graham Drabble
Stage 4 - Surplus of Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')
T = number of votes transferred at this stage
A = votes for candidate after transfer
======================================================================
Voter List
The following individuals supplied valid votes:
Name E-Mail
.m nospam#notnominet#name
{R} {R}#semolina#org
Adrian adrian#ffoil#org#uk
Adrian toomany2cvs#gmail#com
Alan Braggins armb#chiark#greenend#org#uk
Alan Lee alan#darkroom#plus#com
Alan LeHun ukvote#lehun#clara#co#uk
Alex Holden vote#alexholden#co#uk
Alex Potter alex#ap-consulting#co#uk
Ali ali#on_usenet#ntlworld#com
Alistair Gunn palmersperry#yahoo#com
Andrew Gabriel Andrew#cucumber#demon#co#uk
Andrew Heggie news#sylva#icuklive#co#uk
Andrew Hodgson andrew#hodgsonfamily#org
Andy Burns andy#burns#net
Andy Templema andy#templeman#org#uk
anonimulo anonimulo2003#yahoo#com
Anthony R. Gold bigfoot#davros#org
Bob Eager rde#tavi#co#uk
brasseagle steve#offerton#demon#co#uk
Brett Paul Dunbar brett#dimetrodon#demon#co#uk
Brian Brian#bjforster#force9#co#uk
BunnyHare barb#barbshouse#fsnet#co#uk
Charles Bryant ukcom2009#vote#ch#chch#demon#co#uk
Charles Lindsey chl#clerew#man#ac#uk
Cherry Chapstick glenys#kororaa#com
Chris Hills chaz#chaz6#com
Chris Jackson chris#fluffhouse#org#uk
Clive D.W. Feather clive#davros#org
Clive George clive#evil-c#co#uk
Clive Martin clive#cmartin#demon#co#uk
Clive R Robertson usenet-vote#clive#org#uk
Colin Rosenstiel usenet#rosenstiel#cix#co#uk
Cris Galletly cris#galletly#googlemail#com
Danny Colyer d#redpedals#co#uk
Dave Williams dave#clues#com
David Damerell damerell#chiark#greenend#org#uk
David Kemper david#kemper#ntlworld#com
David Taylor davidt-unna-2009#yadt#co#uk
Dick Gaughan dg#dickgaughan#co#uk
djc slais-www#ucl#ac#uk
Dr J R Stockton J#R#Stockton#physics#org
Dr Zoidberg alex#drzoidberg#co#uk
Eleanor Blair eleanor#the-blairs#co#uk
Geoff Berrow vote#4theweb#co#uk
Graham Drabble graham#drabble#me#uk
Grant xcom2k9b#mason#sh
Gripper neely#weely#btinternet#com
Herbie herbie1#gmail#com
Huge huge#huge#org#uk
I J Clifton ian#clifton#chem#ox#ac#uk
Ian Jackson ijackson#chiark#greenend#org#uk
J. P. Gilliver G6JPG#soft255#demon#co#uk
James Coupe james#zephyr#org#uk
jaygee corbei#post#com
Jim Avery ja#averyjim#myzen#co#uk
Jim Crowther Don't_spam#wotmeworry#org#uk
John Blundell jcb#news#ntlworld#com
John Hall john#jhall#co#uk
John the R-T john-the-r-t#gmx#co#uk
Jon Nicoll jkn#nicorp#co#uk
Jonathan Amery jdamery#chiark#greenend#org#uk
Judith Smith judithmsmith#live#co#uk
Jusme nn-39282#jusme#com
kat kat#news#ntlworld#com
laz gurudamo-mail#yahoo#co#uk
Mark mafw13#yahoo#co#uk
mark BR mandd#barber-riley#co#uk
Mark Goodge mark#good-stuff#co#uk
Mark Spice mcspice#tiscali#co#uk
Mark Williams mark#aziraphale#homeip#net
Matt Balyuzi mbalyuzi#gmail#com
Matthew Vernon matthew#debian#org
MCC mcc11639#gmx#co#uk
Michael Parry mjp#crowsnest#co#uk
Mike Barnes mb-usenet#thedowerhouse#com
Mike Bristow mike#urgle#com
Mike Fleming mike#tauzero#co#uk
Mike P mikepearson8#yahoo#co#uk
Mike Tomlinson mike#jasper#org#uk
Molly Mockford com2009#mollymockford#me#uk
Mr. Benn censorshipnoto#yahoo#co#uk
ned alandale#bugsandweeds#co#uk
Neil Matthews neil#chaos#org#uk
Nick Nick#Spam#yahoo#co#uk
Nigel Cliffe ncliffe#btinternet#com
Owen Dunn owend#chiark#greenend#org#uk
Owen Rees owenrees#waitrose#com
Parrotfish parrotfish20#btinternet#com
paul {voter}#watman#clara#co#uk
Paul Cummins tramlink0800#googlemail#com
Paul Giverin paul#giverin#co#uk
pcb1962 peter#pandasys#co#uk
Pedt pedt#oddities-etc#co#uk
Peter D Hill peter#hill#skyshack#demon#co#uk
Peter Duncanson mail#peterduncanson#net
Peter Grange peter#plgrange#demon#co#uk
Peter J Ross peadar#ruadh#gmail#com
Peter Maydell pmaydell#chiark#greenend#org#uk
Peter Parry peter#wpp#ltd#uk
Peter Robinson pmrobinson#gmx#net
Rabbit Sandra#thistledoo#plus#com
Richard Kettlewell rjk#greenend#org#uk
Rob Morley nospam#ntlworld#com
Roger Burton West roger#firedrake#org
Roger Chapman r#chapman470#btinternet#com
Roger Hayter roger#hayter#org
Ross Younger news06#crazyscot#com
Sam Holloway sam#samholloway#co#uk
Sara Merriman saramerriman#blueyonder#co#uk
Simon Brooke stillyet#googlemail#com
Sn!pe steve#notforspam#fsnet#co#uk
Stephen Gower socks-1netnews#earth#li
Steve Baker stevebakerj#freeuk#com
Steve Firth vote#malloc#co#uk
Steve Walker steve#walker#mongo#org#uk
Stuart O'Donnell news#venicones#co#uk
Tansy aaaroseby#googlemail#com
The Happy Hippy the#happy#hippy#ntlworld#com
The Wanderer the#wanderer#tesco#net
Thomas Womack tom#womack#net
Tickettyboo tickettyboo#shaw#ca
Tom Crispin Kije#freeuk#com
Tony tony#darkstorm#co#uk
Trevor A Panther tapan#blueyonder#co#uk
Troy's Human john#pegler#org#uk
Victor Meldrew com2k9#meldrew#me#uk
Will Wilkinson will#lancre#net
Wm tcnw81#tarrcity#demon#co#uk
Zhang Dawei xiaoxi-1000#mugwort#adsl24#co#uk
======================================================================
Counted Vote List
The guidelines for the UK Usenet Committee Elections stipulate
that the votes of all voters shall be published in such a way that
only the voter can recognise his/her own vote.
The following votes were counted, listed in alphanumeric order of
the Voter ID:
Candidate Ranking
Ballot ID A B C D E F G
================ ===================
01f0b0daa5575bf3 - - 2 3 1 - -
03183a58b5df6efc - - 1 2 3 - -
05d66374e6c1a3b9 5 3 6 1 2 7 4
0a71678de1f24a78 5 4 3 1 2 6 7
0da808c0c4208fab 6 1 4 5 7 2 3
0e45992f393f9ad9 - - 2 3 1 - -
0f95333789454c6b - 4 3 1 2 - -
121c4a51a4dbbfc8 5 7 1 3 2 6 4
18c841e100444f42 - - 3 2 1 - -
1d6695826e8b6a53 - - 3 1 2 - -
1d882cfc4d1903e3 - 4 1 2 3 - -
1e77a7d088e3ffc6 4 6 3 2 1 7 5
1ecf04a87a424b78 5 3 4 2 7 6 1
1f8bdd425f5fbd2e 5 6 2 1 3 7 4
20ffec71004aa23b 5 7 3 1 2 6 4
2317188c18deff4e - - 2 1 3 - -
2856a35f815dcdf6 - - 3 1 2 - -
29c96b37f2427d55 4 2 6 1 7 5 3
2ad2fbb622eca8f7 - 4 3 1 2 - -
2c1c4c908d8d7e3f 4 - 3 1 2 - -
2d8d14caf16d964d - - 3 1 2 4 -
2fa5d2d872c8c44b 7 6 2 1 3 4 5
31434d91a79b59c4 - - 3 1 2 - -
3260f83b7fe25b74 - - 2 - 1 - -
379576ecc4e87096 - - 3 2 1 - -
3a592a60803f79b0 2 4 - 1 - 5 3
410b9745c62ad81e - 4 2 1 3 - -
41cde194fa01b0c7 4 2 - 5 - 3 1
472383fec74c8bcd 5 6 1 2 3 7 4
4a1ff36d3972f4b1 3 1 6 5 7 4 2
4a687b23298f6a83 4 - 1 3 2 - -
4b1d2d37a2298f8a 7 5 2 1 3 6 4
4ba4be09d5d18d54 4 2 - - - 1 3
4e64b3037c36d1a2 - - - 2 1 - -
501bfbe6fd861155 - - 1 2 3 - -
51a803aa23c8e235 - - 3 1 2 - -
51af9a3f128a6385 - - 2 1 3 - -
526d33b905acd980 - - 3 1 2 - -
53091ae1d0c55c6b - - 3 1 2 - -
5b4cd87445c30f60 - - 3 1 2 - -
5b6775c8ff86ccf6 5 - 2 3 4 - 1
5c65e50213812b92 - - 2 1 3 - -
5c987ac5d883d683 7 6 3 1 2 5 4
5d1b67ae86b00acd 5 - 3 1 2 - 4
5eef31d3c434b4aa - - 1 3 2 - -
62cc72c5a52a7637 - - 2 3 1 - -
66cc4e6036176693 - 4 1 2 3 - -
66e754e8bb67076c 2 3 5 6 7 4 1
6b883f4bf25f7074 - 4 1 2 3 - -
6ce90e2bad8d92a6 4 7 1 2 3 6 5
6efb8bbe2a0995ab - - 3 2 1 - 4
72a1aa1370e7f532 - - 2 1 3 - -
76f9aa3e9960fe95 - - 3 2 1 - -
792af57cc97ccb3a - - 1 3 2 - -
7af31783a6e92c98 - - 3 1 2 - -
7d80fd5b6a6b6645 3 1 5 6 7 2 4
7e1c4ef7faf171a9 - - 1 - 2 - -
7e937c0122b1d4c2 - - 3 1 2 - -
81210c3186fe0f01 - 1 - - - 3 2
81722bdffbd9161c - - 3 1 2 - -
81ebb395dfb54d5d 7 5 2 1 3 4 6
835bedf0d8a61088 4 5 2 3 1 - -
840d415c29a5ce59 4 6 2 1 3 7 5
867f648ebbb80b18 - - 3 1 2 - -
88933cba016ca669 - - - 1 - - -
899bbab80a896097 6 7 3 1 2 5 4
8a7c73b9e1674b07 4 3 2 - 6 5 1
8ab06d2c6072deb3 2 5 6 4 7 3 1
8b3c2c666b53e650 - - 2 - 1 - -
8cb8d2b4ffa71667 - - 4 1 - 3 2
8cd89f72cd328d1c 6 5 3 1 2 7 4
8ed3c7c444e1f8d2 5 6 2 1 3 7 4
8f196a59bcd788fa - - 2 3 1 - -
93a60ebbd0d7ecfe - - 2 1 3 - -
97dc952acf2c0ec9 - - 2 3 1 - -
9de42e2489c68449 - - 3 1 2 - -
9e912c4744e5b402 - - 1 2 3 - -
a0f187c06977e947 2 3 6 4 7 5 1
a352c219e0b7e44d - - 1 2 3 - -
a4ecb308bab450d5 - - 3 1 2 - -
a66ac2bc2ec0d844 5 6 2 1 3 7 4
a8da7d7da890706b - - 3 1 2 - 4
a971649383d2f4b2 - - 3 2 1 - -
aa98bb3b24cf2cc9 - - 1 2 3 - -
ab84858f05b62582 4 6 5 2 3 7 1
b10a876f256dd06c - - 2 - 1 - -
b331d7da7d054ad1 - - 3 - 1 2 -
b4a9ceaa45a6a2fe - - 2 1 3 - -
b58ba2fdfcbf969e 6 5 2 3 1 7 4
b5df1ee35b0bba68 3 4 5 2 6 - 1
b61e6422188c4485 - 3 2 - 1 - -
b7560acacba18011 - - 3 2 1 - -
b85553a9e3ca0f9d - - 2 1 3 - -
b8a2e8d12dab4a26 - - 1 2 3 - 4
bc7e6518a00115e2 - - 3 2 1 4 -
bd1b17cb0ba39c9b 5 6 2 1 3 7 4
bdafe79da77d9186 - - 3 1 2 - -
c17185d123438d1f 2 3 7 5 6 4 1
c35a87118b99dbc4 4 6 3 1 2 7 5
c406f1d1639cbf15 - - 2 1 3 4 5
c44d956d1833bd46 6 4 3 2 1 5 7
c7ce0fef1b0f1138 - - 3 2 1 - -
c85c1085f6856e11 4 5 6 7 3 2 1
c8805fc5d2378974 - - 3 1 2 - 4
cac24abc58505774 - - 3 2 1 - -
cd2498e3fd304d22 - - 1 3 2 - -
cd4f3e41a7962e62 1 5 7 3 4 6 2
ce290f9da93f3220 2 5 7 6 1 4 3
ce7431dcf67d084c - - 1 2 3 - -
cf365beeda9b4f9e 5 4 1 3 2 7 6
d27ebedb258d364e - - 2 1 3 - -
d331dcab0168b5e0 - - 1 2 3 - -
d36726646372eb5d 4 7 2 3 1 6 5
d3fe7fd41d565694 - - 2 1 3 - -
d5809cf4fccb8f2d - - 2 3 1 - -
d73f5351ab031245 - - 2 1 3 - -
da8e40d3a900d0d4 - - 2 1 3 - -
dbd6c1043686a232 5 3 6 1 7 2 4
ddd321641aba88c3 7 3 4 1 6 2 5
e07622ff2691fc67 - 4 1 2 3 - -
e40e0b0050a54454 - - 1 2 3 - 4
e7719bf664d76425 - - 3 1 2 - -
e78751cd2c890375 4 - 2 1 3 6 5
ea5446d57cae2658 - - 3 1 2 - -
ec2830af69c2d683 A A A A A A A
f017cb60fc5c84fa 7 6 2 1 3 5 4
f4abf0e619ce5a2c - - 2 3 1 - -
fc697880093576fd - - 2 1 3 - -
fe21849131467dec - - 3 2 1 - -
fe920c247a901895 - 2 4 1 - - 3
Key: - = No preference expressed for that candidate
A = Abstained
If you wish to check that your vote has been correctly recorded, your
Ballot ID can be found on your ballot paper and your acknowledgement.
It should be noted that the Ballot IDs were issued randomly, and the
sequence here does not match either the order in which ballot papers
were requested or the alphabetical sequence of voter names or email
addresses.
========================================================================
Votetaker's Comments
Barry:-
Whilst there were some problems with ballot requests being rejected by
the SpamAssassin threshold on the UKVoting mail server being set too
low (initially 5.0, then 6.0 and now 10.0), as far as I can tell no
potential votes were lost.
Participants are reminded that the instructions on the CFV clearly state
that the purpose of the vote is to determine the genuine interest of
persons who have an interest in the people who represent them on the
Committee and that soliciting votes from disinterested parties defeats
this purpose.
Whilst we appreciate that Demon Internet is a UK ISP, a post was made to
demon.service in a clear breach of this rule and, following discussion
with other members of UKVoting, if this had been a normal group creation
vote, the post would have been declared *VOTING FRAUD* and the vote
abandoned.
It was also brought to the attention of the votetakers that what can be
politely described as "less than impartial" pointers to the CFV (or,
worse, just the ballot request address) were posted to a number of
groups within uk.*. These posts were made both by candidates and by
others not directly involved in the Elections.
In addition, the votetakers were advised that some people, again
including candidates, were posting with controversial signatures
relating to the Elections.
Whilst reminding uk.* groups of the Elections is admirable, a neutral
posting pointing people to unna is recommended. If in doubt, posters are
asked to check with the votetaker(s) *BEFORE* making such posts.
A statement from UKVoting, formalising our position on this matter, will
be posted in due course.
That aside, the vote ran reasonably smoothly, with almost all of the
votes easily verified, thanks in part to how long I've been a member of
UKVoting, and the majority of the voters being regulars. The usual peaks
and troughs in the number of votes cast on a given day were present, as
we expect, with smaller peaks following pointers to the CFV being posted
to groups outside of uk.net.news.*.
Finally, I'd just like to congratulate Graham, Clive, 'kat' and Matthew
on their election, and offer my commiserations to Jonathan, David and
Ian.
Jon:-
Apologies for any ballot paper requests which were rejected by the
anti-spam system. This was somewhat unexpected as the system has been
unchanged for a long time and has never caused any issue previously.
The spam thresholds for the *.ukvoting.org.uk domains have now been
relaxed considerably, to prevent any future emails being inadvertently
blocked.
Many thanks to Barry for handling this complicated vote which turned
out to be rather more exciting than might have been expected in
advance.
Congratulations to those elected, and our thanks to all the candidates.
======================================================================
Voting and Appeal Information
This vote was conducted by neutral third party members of UKVoting.
UKVoting is a group of independent votetakers who count votes on
behalf of the uk.* hierarchy and other 3rd parties.
The rules under which votes for the uk.* hierarchy are taken are posted
regularly to uk.net.news.announce or can be found at the following URL:
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html>
The UKVoting web pages can be found at <http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/>
There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted to
uk.net.news.announce.
Allegations of irregularity should be sent to the committee via email
to: control (at) usenet (dot) org (dot) uk.
======================================================================
(The information in this and the following section is a copy of that
provided in the CFV)
Definition of Open Class of Membership
Any participant in the uk.* hierarchy qualifies as a candidate in the
Open class.
========================================================================
Application Requirements
Any participant in the uk.* hierarchy qualifies as a nominator for the
Open class.
Any individual may nominate a maximum of four candidates.
========================================================================
Persons retiring from the Committee
Open Member Class:
Chris Croughton
Graham Drabble
Fiona Gostling (aka 'Kat')
Who have served their respective terms.
Clive D. W. Feather
Who was co-opted as an Open Member of the Committee in November 2008.
========================================================================
Candidates:
Seven nominations have been received. The Committee has four vacancies
and therefore an election will be held to fill the four vacancies.
A list of the candidates is below (in alphabetical order by surname).
Candidates:
Jonathan Amery Candidate A
David Damerell Candidate B
Graham Drabble Candidate C
Clive D. W. Feather Candidate D
Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat') Candidate E
Ian Jackson Candidate F
Matthew Vernon Candidate G
Please find below details of the people who nominated each candidate
(Name & Email Address) and a short statement from each candidate:
Note: In each case, only the names of the first four nominators to
confirm their nomination are listed.
========================================================================
Candidate A
Name: Jonathan Amery
E-Mail: jdamery (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Nominators:
Name: Clare Boothby
E-Mail: clareb (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Name: Eleanor Blair
E-Mail: eleanorb (at) gmail (dot) com
Name: Matthew Vernon
E-Mail: matthew (at) debian (dot) org
Name: Ian Jackson
E-Mail: ijackson (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Personal Statement:
None provided.
========================================================================
Candidate B
Name: David Damerell
E-Mail: damerell (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Nominators:
Name: Ian Jackson
E-Mail: ijackson (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Name: Clare Boothby
E-Mail: clareb (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Name: Eleanor Blair
E-Mail: eleanorb (at) gmail (dot) com
Name: Matthew Vernon
E-Mail: matthew (at) debian (dot) org
Personal Statement:
I have used uk.* since early 1994, and served on the uk.* Committee
around ten years ago. It's easy to forget that the Committee are the
servants not the masters; I believe that has been forgotten, and that
when members of the Committee suggest, in a petty-minded fit of pique,
RFDing the removal of the group that received the largest ever "yes"
vote, that is a fine example of how things are seriously wrong.
If I am elected I will:
Examine the de facto procedures in use and either RFD to make them
Guidelines or make it clear that they are merely preferences that can be
suggested during the RFD process like any other.
Work with Control to determine if group creation can be done more
expediently.
Endeavour to maintain a civil tone in discussions related to uk.*
administration, unlike many members of the current Committee.
========================================================================
Candidate C
Name: Graham Drabble
E-Mail: usenet05 (at) drabble (dot) me (dot) uk
Nominators:
Name: Tony Evans
E-Mail: tony (at) darkstorm (dot) co (dot) uk
Name: Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')
E-Mail: kat.news (at) ntlworld (dot) com
Name: Molly Mockford
E-Mail: com2009 (at) mollymockford (dot) me (dot) uk
Name: Charles H. Lindsey
E-Mail: chl (at) clerew (dot) man (dot) ac (dot) uk
Personal Statement:
Generally I feel that the committee should use a very light touch,
giving advice where possible and only intervening when required to by
the guidelines. unn* as a community, and, despite the naturally changing
population, I do believe it can and is most sucessful when it acts as a
community, should be responsible for ensuring that RFDs are discussed in
a positive way and that proponents are guided to a sucessful RFD
wherever possible.
========================================================================
Candidate D
Name: Clive D. W. Feather
E-Mail: clive (at) davros (dot) org
Nominators:
Name: Mike Bristow
E-Mail: mike (at) urgle (dot) com
Name: Peter Parry
E-Mail: peter (at) wpp (dot) ltd (dot) uk
Name: John Hall
E-Mail: john (at) jhall (dot) co (dot) uk
Name: Graham Drabble
E-Mail: graham (at) drabble (dot) me (dot) uk
Personal Statement:
For those wondering what you'd get:
* experience of Usenet in general, and the Committee in particular;
* technical knowledge (see RFC 3977);
* a common-sense approach to the unimportance of Usenet;
* the capability to distinguish sensible points from idiot comments;
* the ability to be pedantic for England [1] if necessary;
* a world-weary cynicism.
Your choice.
[1] I have represented the UK to ISO.
========================================================================
Candidate E
Name: Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')
E-Mail: kat (dot) news (at) ntlworld (dot) com
Nominators:
Name: Wm
E-Mail: tcnw81 (at) tarrcity (dot) demon (dot) co (dot) uk
Name: Molly Mockford
E-Mail: com2009 (at) mollymockford (dot) me (dot) uk
Name: Geoff Berrow
E-Mail: com2009 (at) 4theweb (dot) co (dot) uk
Name: Martyn Bailey (aka 'Mother')
E-Mail: nospam (at) notnominet (dot) name
Personal Statement:
I have served two terms on the Committee and if elected would continue
as before, to attempt to give the view of an ordinary user of usenet.
The hierarchy appears to be running smoothly, and I hope this continues
to be the case. But if it doesn't, I would be happy to continue serving
the uk.* community.
========================================================================
Candidate F
Name: Ian Jackson
E-Mail: ijackson (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Nominators:
Name: David Damerell
E-Mail: damerell (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Name: Theo Markettos
E-Mail: theom+news (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Name: Clare Boothby
E-Mail: clareb (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Name: Eleanor Blair
E-Mail: eleanorb (at) gmail (dot) com
Personal Statement:
I've been on USENET since 1989, and in that time have been a participant
in many newsgroups. I've also been involved in group creation
processes: for example, as a votetaker for the big-8 around 1992, and
most recently as the proponent for the very successful
uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
I'm hoping to provide assistance and encouragement to proponents to try
to get them the groups they want.
========================================================================
Candidate G
Name: Matthew Vernon
E-Mail: matthew (at) debian (dot) org
Nominators:
Name: David Damerell
E-Mail: damerell (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Name: Theo Markettos
E-Mail: theom+news (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Name: Ian Jackson
E-Mail: ijackson (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Name: Clare Boothby
E-Mail: clareb (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Personal Statement:
I'm Matthew Vernon, a research scientist and veterinary surgeon in my
"day job". I've been reading usenet for the last decade or so, and am
a contributor to several uk groups. I was involved in the recent
discussions about the creation of the new group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated, and am pleased to see the new group taking
off nicely. I think the process could have gone more smoothly, though,
and that members of the committee could have been more civil when the
process was criticised. I spent ten years as a trustee of an education
charity (including one year as chair), and am aware that what
committee members say as individuals does inevitably reflect on the
committee as a whole.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.9-(GNU/Linux)
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBSxLn0GOfGXkh8vHZAQJNhAP+OyCJcsl4f2U4wYmfsPx76Zre1an5IWnG
gDsfLxOZS9Nb+j/QEOU9mY2r99DIZ3mO8BatGM8HxItunc9Ai5nTy7j6obTUd1Fx
7cLP3UFJBF8DlZe0j5Q3X314FyU8zepaVFTcyC7zLT4h+5KKjC+NyhYTVWbgBXKX
98Wmt8Zh8VI=
=IBLS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Denis McMahon
> [stuff]
Damn your efficiency Salter. I said Monday.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>First Preferences:
>
> Jonathan Amery : 1
> David Damerell : 4
> Graham Drabble : 22
> Clive D. W. Feather : 61
>Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat) : 29
> Ian Jackson : 1
> Matthew Vernon : 11
I think that speaks for itself.
Congratulations to the four winners. I'm sure that Matthew will make
an excellent addition to the committee.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
.m
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:56:44 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> said:
> I think that speaks for itself.
Quite. Congratulations to those staying, welcome to Mr Vernon, and
to the others, well, tought luck, democracy's like that, now please
just fuck off eh?
--
--
Sent from my phone (yes I know that may be sad)
Therefore please excuse errors in formatting,
spelling, typos, simple logic or reasoning.
Graham Drabble
news:result-committee-elections-2009-20091129212952$4b...@gradwell.net:
> Stage 1
>
> Total Votes Cast: 130
> Invalid Votes: 1
> Total Valid Vote: 129
> Places to be filled +1: 5
>
> So Quota = 129/5
> Quota = 25.80
>
> First Preferences:
>
> Jonathan Amery : 1
> David Damerell : 4
> Graham Drabble : 22
> Clive D. W. Feather : 61
> Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat) : 29
> Ian Jackson : 1
> Matthew Vernon : 11
Huge congratulations to Clive, to get nearly 50% first choice is highly
impressive.
A welcome to Matthew, the black helicopter will be delivering hob-nobs
shortly.
Many thanks to all those who took part.
--
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/
Nick
> On 29 Nov 2009 Barry Salter <bsa...@ukvoting.org.uk> wrote in
> news:result-committee-elections-2009-20091129212952$4b...@gradwell.net:
>
>> Stage 1
>>
>> Total Votes Cast: 130
>> Invalid Votes: 1
>> Total Valid Vote: 129
>> Places to be filled +1: 5
>>
>> So Quota = 129/5
>> Quota = 25.80
>>
>> First Preferences:
>>
>> Jonathan Amery : 1
>> David Damerell : 4
>> Graham Drabble : 22
>> Clive D. W. Feather : 61
>> Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat) : 29
>> Ian Jackson : 1
>> Matthew Vernon : 11
>
> Huge congratulations to Clive, to get nearly 50% first choice is highly
> impressive.
I suspect position in the ballot may have affected things significantly
and the preference for him over you may not be as great as it appears.
Andrew Hodgson
[...]
>
> Graham Drabble
> Clive D. W. Feather
> Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')
> Matthew Vernon
Congratulations/comiserations to those who got in!
Andrew.
Molly Mockford
wrote in <uft5h5la15dd0kfkh...@4ax.com>:
>Just a shame the idiot Jackson got one vote.
I would be very surprised if any candidate did not cast a first-place
vote for themselves.
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
Matthew Vernon
> A welcome to Matthew, the black helicopter will be delivering hob-nobs
> shortly.
That will explain the leaking roof then?!?
Thanks to all who took part (and particularly those who voted for me
:)
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
Trevor A Panther
news:result-committee-elections-2009-20091129212952$4b...@gradwell.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Result of Call for Votes
> UK Usenet Committee Elections 2009
<snipped>
Many thanks for that and the services rendered.
Much appreciated
--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Andy Burns
> I would be very surprised if any candidate did not cast a first-place
> vote for themselves.
Shall we play "Guess the owner of ballot id 4ba4be09d5d18d54"?
Jonathan Amery
Molly Mockford <usene...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>At 22:33:10 on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Victor Meldrew <vic...@gmail.com>
>wrote in <uft5h5la15dd0kfkh...@4ax.com>:
>
>>Just a shame the idiot Jackson got one vote.
>
>I would be very surprised if any candidate did not cast a first-place
>vote for themselves.
Actually...
1 Clive D. W. Feather Candidate D
So I'm not sure who ranked me first.
J.
--
Jonathan Amery. Prayerful souls may find him
##### By our quiet lakes,
#######__o Meet him on our hillsides
#######'/ When the morning breaks. - James T. East
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>I'll go eat my hat re: my predictions.
>
>But I'll make sure it tastes like bacon.
Not wishing to tempt fate, I made a prediction in private.
Should have put a bet on ;-)
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker
Steve Firth
> > Huge congratulations to Clive, to get nearly 50% first choice is highly
> > impressive.
>
> I suspect position in the ballot may have affected things significantly
> and the preference for him over you may not be as great as it appears.
<snigger>
Yes of course. Heck. Can't possibly be because the electorate know him
and like his approach to Committee membership.
Damn <tap><tap> my irony meter has just exploded.
Graham Drabble
news:015b7924$0$26629$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
> Graham Drabble wrote:
>> Huge congratulations to Clive, to get nearly 50% first choice is
>> highly impressive.
>
> I suspect position in the ballot may have affected things
> significantly and the preference for him over you may not be as
> great as it appears.
I actually think it should be that big. Of all the people standing
Clive offered something unique, a real, in depth understanding of NNTP
along with the experience of having actually implemented it for a major
provider.
I think there are several people around who could provide what most of
the committee provide but Clive really does offer something unique and
I'm glad to see the hierarchy has recognised that. The only other
person that offers anything close to his level of Usenet knowledge and
experience is Charles and we're very lucky to have them both.
--
Graham Drabble
"Usenet is mostly just a geek entertainment system that far too many
people try to pretend as some type of "real" value to society."
Curt Welch - news.software.nntp
Geoff Berrow
<bsa...@ukvoting.org.uk> wrote:
>The following people are elected to serve as Open Members of the UK
>Usenet Committee until December 2012:
>
> Graham Drabble
> Clive D. W. Feather
> Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')
> Matthew Vernon
Congratulations to Graham Clive and kat. Welcome Matthew and
commiserations to Jonathan. I think the late statement and Gerald
Ratner moment really blew it for you. Dick Gaughan, amongst other
things, is a great champion of Usenet, something a prospective
candidate really ought to know.
As for Ian and David, I won't pretend I'm not happy you weren't
elected. But if you really think there is something wrong with the
way things are done the RFD is your friend.
Oh and thanks to Barry for doing a great job.
Denis McMahon
> Graham Drabble wrote:
>> On 29 Nov 2009 Barry Salter <bsa...@ukvoting.org.uk> wrote in
>> news:result-committee-elections-2009-20091129212952$4b...@gradwell.net:
>>> Clive D. W. Feather : 61
>> Huge congratulations to Clive, to get nearly 50% first choice is
>> highly impressive.
> I suspect position in the ballot may have affected things significantly
> and the preference for him over you may not be as great as it appears.
I suspect his long history in here has a lot more to do with it than his
position on the ballot.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Nick
> On 29 Nov 2009 Nick <Ni...@spam.com> wrote in
> news:015b7924$0$26629$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
>
>> Graham Drabble wrote:
>
>>> Huge congratulations to Clive, to get nearly 50% first choice is
>>> highly impressive.
>> I suspect position in the ballot may have affected things
>> significantly and the preference for him over you may not be as
>> great as it appears.
>
> I actually think it should be that big. Of all the people standing
> Clive offered something unique, a real, in depth understanding of NNTP
> along with the experience of having actually implemented it for a major
> provider.
>
> I think there are several people around who could provide what most of
> the committee provide but Clive really does offer something unique and
> I'm glad to see the hierarchy has recognised that. The only other
> person that offers anything close to his level of Usenet knowledge and
> experience is Charles and we're very lucky to have them both.
>
merits. I would dispute your estimation of the informed nature of some
members of the electorate, name(s) not mentioned ;o).
Steve Firth
> I'll go eat my hat re: my predictions.
>
> But I'll make sure it tastes like bacon.
I'm sorry but we only do hats in pork-pie, not bacon.
Judith M Smith
<bsa...@ukvoting.org.uk> wrote:
If you look at the number of people who did not vote for particular
candidates, then the following figures emerge. ie there were only 6
people did not vote for Mr Drabble - but 79 who did not vote for Amery
and 79 who did not vote for Jackson.
6 Drabble
7 kat
9 Feather
73 Vernon
74 Damerell
79 Amery
79 Jackson
There appears to be a certain amount of "grouping"
I am not very good at psephology - what does this actually mean?
Would it be correct to say that Jackson, Amery, Damerell, and Vernon
were not very "popular"?
Barry Salter
> At 22:33:10 on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Victor Meldrew <vic...@gmail.com>
> wrote in <uft5h5la15dd0kfkh...@4ax.com>:
>
>> Just a shame the idiot Jackson got one vote.
>
> I would be very surprised if any candidate did not cast a first-place
> vote for themselves.
You may well think that, I couldn't possibly comment.
Pedt
23:12:13 on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
wibbled
>On 29 Nov 2009 Nick <Ni...@spam.com> wrote in
>news:015b7924$0$26629$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
>
>> Graham Drabble wrote:
>
>>> Huge congratulations to Clive, to get nearly 50% first choice is
>>> highly impressive.
>>
>> I suspect position in the ballot may have affected things
>> significantly and the preference for him over you may not be as
>> great as it appears.
>
>I actually think it should be that big. Of all the people standing
>Clive offered something unique, a real, in depth understanding of NNTP
>along with the experience of having actually implemented it for a major
>provider.
>
>I think there are several people around who could provide what most of
>the committee provide but Clive really does offer something unique and
>I'm glad to see the hierarchy has recognised that.
Hear, hear.
Congratulations to the winners and comiserations to the losers (or
should that be the other way round?)
Thanks to Barry and Jon for their efforts in running the vote.
--
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>
Graham Drabble
wrote in news:UQ3pPbCO...@molly.mockford:
> At 22:33:10 on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Victor Meldrew
> <vic...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <uft5h5la15dd0kfkh...@4ax.com>:
>
>>Just a shame the idiot Jackson got one vote.
>
> I would be very surprised if any candidate did not cast a
> first-place vote for themselves.
My first choice vote was for Clive.
kat
Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk> said
> On 29 Nov 2009 Nick <Ni...@spam.com> wrote in
> news:015b7924$0$26629$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
>
>> Graham Drabble wrote:
>
>>> Huge congratulations to Clive, to get nearly 50% first choice is
>>> highly impressive.
>>
>> I suspect position in the ballot may have affected things
>> significantly and the preference for him over you may not be as
>> great as it appears.
>
> I actually think it should be that big. Of all the people standing
> Clive offered something unique, a real, in depth understanding of NNTP
> along with the experience of having actually implemented it for a
> major provider.
>
I agree. Because Clive had never stood for election before, having been on
the committee as a representative of that provider, and then co-opted, he
was a bit of an unknown quantity, I suppose, but he deserves his place.
--
kat
>^..^<
kat
Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> said
> Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk> writes:
>
>> A welcome to Matthew, the black helicopter will be delivering
>> hob-nobs shortly.
>
> That will explain the leaking roof then?!?
yes - and don't eat them all at once, there's a recession you know.
--
kat
>^..^<
Dick Gaughan
<result-committee-elections-2009-20091129212952$4b...@gradwell.net>
on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:29:52 +0000, Barry Salter
<bsa...@ukvoting.org.uk> wrote:
>The following people are elected to serve as Open Members of the UK
>Usenet Committee until December 2012:
>
> Graham Drabble
> Clive D. W. Feather
> Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')
> Matthew Vernon
Good. Heartfelt thank to the votetakers for all their work and for
a speedy result.
Normally I offer commisserations to the convicted and
congratulations to those who escaped but this year I will thank
the electorate for confirming my faith in the good sense of the
majority.
It took little deliberation to vote for the three candidates up
for re-election, and this was not in any way related to the
identities of the other candidates. I would have voted for them
regardless of who the other candidates were as they all have my
unqualified gratitude and respect for their proven record of
committment to the hierarchy.
I also welcome Matthew and hope that, free from all the
acrimonious shite which has surrounded the elections, he will take
his seat in the helicopter and become an asset to the committee.
--
DG
Dick Gaughan
2009 00:56:03 +0000, Judith M Smith <judith...@live.co.uk>
wrote:
>Would it be correct to say that Jackson, Amery, Damerell, and Vernon
>were not very "popular"?
Depends on what you mean by "popular". I'm sure they're all
convivial people to sit and have a pint with (so long as they stay
off the subject of transport).
My reason for not voting for any of them was a simple one - I
believe that their reason for standing was not to serve the
hierarchy but was a fit of petulance and an attempt at a coup to
subvert uk.* for their own agenda. That I will oppose with all
acceptable means, and the election result shows that I am far from
being alone in that.
If I am wrong and their intent was for reforms based on genuine
conviction, they will now present RFDs and allow us to evaluate
and vote on their proposals without all the crap getting in the
way. If their proposals are sensible and constructive, they'll be
adopted.
--
DG
kat
Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk> said
> On 29 Nov 2009 Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk>
> wrote in news:UQ3pPbCO...@molly.mockford:
>
>> At 22:33:10 on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Victor Meldrew
>> <vic...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <uft5h5la15dd0kfkh...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> Just a shame the idiot Jackson got one vote.
>>
>> I would be very surprised if any candidate did not cast a
>> first-place vote for themselves.
>
> My first choice vote was for Clive.
Mine too.
--
kat
>^..^<
kat
Judith M Smith <judith...@live.co.uk> said
While there may have been just a few didn't vote for me at all, there were
another few put me 7th. Somehow think I am not too popular with
them,either. ;-)
--
kat
>^..^<
Steve Firth
> While there may have been just a few didn't vote for me at all, there were
> another few put me 7th. Somehow think I am not too popular with
> them,either. ;-)
Well they obviously don't know you then.
kat
.m <nos...@notnominet.name> said
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:25:51 -0000, "kat" <little...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree. Because Clive had never stood for election before, having
>> been on the committee as a representative of that provider, and then
>> co-opted, he was a bit of an unknown quantity, I suppose, but he
>> deserves his place.
>
> good, but vital to have representation from those who acknowledge they
> have little technical knowledge, as this provides the overall balance
> needed within the committee.
I happily acknowledge it. I know I am not incapable of learning what I need
to know, but the technical side is best left, IMHO, to those who have real
knowledge. Yet I do feel the ordinary user needs to have a voice.
--
kat
>^..^<
kat
.m <nos...@notnominet.name> said
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:53:10 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
>> Yes of course. Heck. Can't possibly be because the electorate know
>> him and like his approach to Committee membership.
>
> until doing fuck all is no longer an option, upon which he'll usually
> do something worthwhile.
I think we all do much of the former. ;-)
--
kat
>^..^<
John Hall
Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> writes:
>Congratulations to the winners and comiserations to the losers (or
>should that be the other way round?)
>
>Thanks to Barry and Jon for their efforts in running the vote.
Hear, hear to all the above.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"
Mr Benn
news:result-committee-elections-2009-20091129212952$4b...@gradwell.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Result of Call for Votes
> UK Usenet Committee Elections 2009
Thank you Barry for a job well done.
Mr Benn
Molly Mockford
wrote in <sn87h5tlqkbqn7dj5...@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:43:09 -0000, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Thank you Barry for a job well done.
>
>Especially so given Barry did it all by hand - something that would
>inspire absolute fear in any mere mortal.
And even in me.
Many congratulations to Barry on a flawless job in difficult
circumstances.
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
paul
> Result of Call for Votes
> UK Usenet Committee Elections 2009
>Summary:
>The following people are elected to serve as Open Members of the UK
>Usenet Committee until December 2012:
> Graham Drabble
> Clive D. W. Feather
> Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')
> Matthew Vernon
Congratulations to the elected, good to see the 'system' functions well.
Many thanks Barry and UKV for all your labours.
--
paul (C) � 2009 is mine
Roger Chapman
> In
> <result-committee-elections-2009-20091129212952$4b...@gradwell.net>
> on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:29:52 +0000, Barry Salter
> <bsa...@ukvoting.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> The following people are elected to serve as Open Members of the UK
>> Usenet Committee until December 2012:
>>
>> Graham Drabble
>> Clive D. W. Feather
>> Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat')
>> Matthew Vernon
>
> Good. Heartfelt thank to the votetakers for all their work and for
> a speedy result.
ditto
>
> Normally I offer commisserations to the convicted and
> congratulations to those who escaped but this year I will thank
> the electorate for confirming my faith in the good sense of the
> majority.
What bothers me about this election is the numbers taking part. only 130
votes cast. Anyone capable of organising a piss-up in a brewery would
have had no problem managing a coup d'etat had they wanted to.
snip
Owen Dunn
> What bothers me about this election is the numbers taking part. only
> 130 votes cast. Anyone capable of organising a piss-up in a brewery
> would have had no problem managing a coup d'etat had they wanted to.
That's democracy - decisions are made by those who show up. For an
election to a small committee 130 votes seems quite good to me.
(S)
John Hall
It seems quite good to me too.
What does concern me a little, though, is that 178 valid ballot requests
resulted in only 129 valid and counted votes. I hope that doesn't mean
that almost fifty potential voters found the ballot form so intimidating
that they decided not to bother to vote. Or, even worse, that a
substantial number of votes were rejected by a spam filter. (Probably
unlikely, as there would surely have been complaints here from at least
some of the people falling foul of it.)
Hopefully there's another plausible and less alarming explanation which
is eluding me. Is the approximately 0.7 ratio of valid votes to ballot
forms despatched typical of past elections, or is it something new?
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <83638rj...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>Roger Chapman <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> What bothers me about this election is the numbers taking part. only
>>> 130 votes cast. Anyone capable of organising a piss-up in a brewery
>>> would have had no problem managing a coup d'etat had they wanted to.
>>
>>That's democracy - decisions are made by those who show up. For an
>>election to a small committee 130 votes seems quite good to me.
>
>It seems quite good to me too.
>
>What does concern me a little, though, is that 178 valid ballot requests
>resulted in only 129 valid and counted votes. I hope that doesn't mean
>that almost fifty potential voters found the ballot form so intimidating
>that they decided not to bother to vote. Or, even worse, that a
>substantial number of votes were rejected by a spam filter. (Probably
>unlikely, as there would surely have been complaints here from at least
>some of the people falling foul of it.)
>
>Hopefully there's another plausible and less alarming explanation which
>is eluding me. Is the approximately 0.7 ratio of valid votes to ballot
>forms despatched typical of past elections, or is it something new?
It's fairly typical for CFVs in general. There are several reasons why
there are more ballot requests than votes:
Some people request a ballot, then delete it by mistake and request
another one.
Some people request a ballot at more than one address (eg, home and
work), but only vote with one of them.
Some people change their minds after voting, but didn't keep the
original ballot so they have to re-request it in order to change their
vote.
Some people request a ballot but decide not to vote bcause they can't
be bothered.
Some people request a ballot but miss the deadline for voting.
Some people request a ballot, but find it too complex to fill in.
There are probably other reasons, but those are the most common. Other
than the last, I don't think any of them are any real cause for
concern.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Tom Crispin
<judith...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:29:52 +0000, Barry Salter
><bsa...@ukvoting.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>If you look at the number of people who did not vote for particular
>candidates, then the following figures emerge. ie there were only 6
>people did not vote for Mr Drabble - but 79 who did not vote for Amery
>and 79 who did not vote for Jackson.
>
>
>
>6 Drabble
>7 kat
>9 Feather
>73 Vernon
>74 Damerell
>79 Amery
>79 Jackson
>
>There appears to be a certain amount of "grouping"
>
>I am not very good at psephology - what does this actually mean?
>
>Would it be correct to say that Jackson, Amery, Damerell, and Vernon
>were not very "popular"?
Using the Grand Prix scoring system, i.e. 10 points for a first, 8
points for second, 6 points for third, 5 points for fourth, 4 points
for fifth, 3 points for sixth, 2 points for seventh and zero points
for a "-", the results are:
Amery - 234
Damerell - 268
Drabble - 860
Feather - 1003
Gostling - 872
Jackson - 212
Vernon - 334
Clive D. W. Feather
>Huge congratulations to Clive, to get nearly 50% first choice is highly
>impressive.
I must say that rarely has my flabber been so ghasted as when I read
those numbers.
Thank you to all those who voted for me, congratulations to the other
winners, and a hearty thank you to the votetakers.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
Clive D. W. Feather
>I actually think it should be that big. Of all the people standing
>Clive offered something unique, a real, in depth understanding of NNTP
>along with the experience of having actually implemented it for a major
>provider.
Nitpick: while I helped with the design of Demon's <N>th newsserver
system, I wasn't the one who did the hard work - that was Ade Lovett.
Pedt
19:44:26 on Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wibbled
>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:50:17 +0000, John Hall put finger to keyboard
>and typed:
>>Hopefully there's another plausible and less alarming explanation which
>>is eluding me. Is the approximately 0.7 ratio of valid votes to ballot
>>forms despatched typical of past elections, or is it something new?
>
>It's fairly typical for CFVs in general. There are several reasons why
>there are more ballot requests than votes:
>
>Some people request a ballot, then delete it by mistake and request
>another one.
>
>Some people
[..]
Some people request a ballot from a spamtrapped address and then have to
try again.
--
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>
Barry Salter
> Ho hum. I sent a vote, received no acknowledgement, forgot to follow
> up and it wasn't counted (or didn't arrive). The result was as I seem
> to recall voting, so no big deal.
>
A quick look in my sent mail folder shows that a rejection mail was sent
at 5:16 on the 25th of October as you hadn't filled in your name on the
ballot paper, but no corrected vote was received. (Which also means
there's a couple of missing lines in the results).
From the voting instructions:
It is your responsibility to ensure that your ballot paper has been
received by checking that the acknowledgement arrives. You should
also check that your vote is recorded correctly in the
acknowledgement. If there are any problems with your
acknowledgement, you should contact the votetaker.
Or, to summarise, it's not up to the votetaker to chase a would be voter
if there is a problem with their vote which means it isn't counted.
Cheers,
Barry
Denis McMahon
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:44:26 +0000, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Some people request a ballot, but find it too complex to fill in.
>
<facetious>
No-one at chiark received a ballot, chirak's email filters rejected them
all.
</facetious>
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Roger Chapman
It is not the size of the committee but the lack of votes that bothers
me. The potential electorate is surely such that 130 amounts to a
derisory proportion.
Owen Dunn
> It is not the size of the committee but the lack of votes that
> bothers me. The potential electorate is surely such that 130 amounts
> to a derisory proportion.
What I meant (with apologies to the committee) is that the committee
isn't very important.
Also, if all the potential electorate voted UKVoting would probably
melt.
(S)
Pedt
1 Dec 2009, Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wibbled
>
>Also, if all the potential electorate voted UKVoting would probably
>melt.
<visions of Barry printing out thousands of ballot papers>
--
Pedt
John Hall
Roger Chapman <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> writes:
<snip>
>The potential electorate is surely such that 130 amounts to a derisory
>proportion.
How many people do you think are regular readers of one or more groups
in the uk.* hierarchy? There's no way of knowing, of course, when there
could be many lurkers who never post, but I'd guess it would be a
thousand or so. I don't know whether you'd call on the order of an
eighth a "derisory proportion". I'd say that it was much smaller than
one would ideally like, but far from derisory. It's probably comparable
to the proportion of people who vote in council elections.
Alan LeHun
sal...@nospam.demon.co.uk says...
> It is your responsibility to ensure that your ballot paper has been
> received by checking that the acknowledgement arrives.
>
I never received an ack, or a reply to my email querying the
lack of an ack.
Damn sure it was my own system at fault, though.
--
Alan LeHun
Richard Kettlewell
>> The potential electorate is surely such that 130 amounts to a
>> derisory proportion.
>
> How many people do you think are regular readers of one or more
> groups in the uk.* hierarchy? There's no way of knowing, of course,
> when there could be many lurkers who never post, but I'd guess it
> would be a thousand or so. I don't know whether you'd call on the
> order of an eighth a "derisory proportion". I'd say that it was much
> smaller than one would ideally like, but far from derisory. It's
> probably comparable to the proportion of people who vote in council
> elections.
I count about 17,000 distinct From: lines in uk.*, with about 10,000
of them appearing on more than one posting. As you say there is a lot
of uncertainty in these numbers but I think it's safe to conclude that
the turnout was under 2%.
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>In article <LeKdnRUZfexCVonW...@bt.com>,
> Roger Chapman <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> writes:
><snip>
>>The potential electorate is surely such that 130 amounts to a derisory
>>proportion.
>
>How many people do you think are regular readers of one or more groups
>in the uk.* hierarchy? There's no way of knowing, of course, when there
>could be many lurkers who never post, but I'd guess it would be a
>thousand or so. I don't know whether you'd call on the order of an
>eighth a "derisory proportion". I'd say that it was much smaller than
>one would ideally like, but far from derisory. It's probably comparable
>to the proportion of people who vote in council elections.
Possibly.
But how many regular readers and posters in the uk.* hierarchy were
aware that a committee election was taking place? How many even know
that there is a committee?
I lurk in the uk.net.news.* newsgroups so that I can see what is
happening. How many readers and posters in the uk.* hierarchy are even
aware of those newsgroups?
I'm sure this question has been raised before, but shouldn't
notifications of committee elections be posted to all uk.* newsgroups?
It is not reasonable to bemoan the lack of participation in an election
if the majority of potential voters have not been notified that an
election is taking place.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
Geoff Berrow
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>It is not reasonable to bemoan the lack of participation in an election
>if the majority of potential voters have not been notified that an
>election is taking place.
One might think so.
In actual fact it's far more difficult. We can't send an announcement
to all groups because of spam rules.
A few years ago the committee tried an experiment. It reasoned that,
as the charter of a group was always on topic it should be possible to
post the charter (very infrequently) and maybe add a little public
service announcement to it (like 'Subscribe to the low-volume unna for
announcements etc'). Reasonable?
There was uproar. (IMV an over-reaction but there you go) I mean,
you'd think the committee had committed a vile and indecent act the
way people went on, when all they really wanted to do was let people
know what was going on.
Never again.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker
Sara
Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
Very true - before I followed the creation of URCM I didn't know they
existed, and I've been reading/writing to Usenet for over 10 years. As
I'd never thought about it, it never occured to me to look.
--
Sara
Cuddler of rats, cats and husband
Denis McMahon
> I'm sure this question has been raised before, but shouldn't
> notifications of committee elections be posted to all uk.* newsgroups?
Can't be done without spamming.
Whether it's good spam or not would be irrelevant, because spam
detection is content neutral, it doesn't care about what the message is,
simply that a substantively identical message has been posted / x-posted
to too many groups.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:10:44 +0000, Peter Duncanson
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>It is not reasonable to bemoan the lack of participation in an election
>>if the majority of potential voters have not been notified that an
>>election is taking place.
>
>One might think so.
>
>In actual fact it's far more difficult. We can't send an announcement
>to all groups because of spam rules.
>
>A few years ago the committee tried an experiment. It reasoned that,
>as the charter of a group was always on topic it should be possible to
>post the charter (very infrequently) and maybe add a little public
>service announcement to it (like 'Subscribe to the low-volume unna for
>announcements etc'). Reasonable?
>
That would seem reasonable, however, I can see how some subscribers to a
group might see the posting of the charter as a reproach: an implied
suggestion that off topic messages are being posted and that this should
stop.
>There was uproar. (IMV an over-reaction but there you go) I mean,
>you'd think the committee had committed a vile and indecent act the
>way people went on, when all they really wanted to do was let people
>know what was going on.
>
>Never again.
Quite.
Obviously sending messages simultaneously to all uk groups is out
because of spam rules. Would it be possible to send individual messages
along the lines of:
This newsgroup, uk.abc.lmn.xyz, was created in <year> by the UK
Usenet Committee.
Then a very brief mention that committee members are elected by uk.*
users, and then a reference to unna as being the place to observe and
participate in the formation of new ngs, etc.
I don't think that would carry the (unintended) implied criticism that
posting a ng's charter would have.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
Geoff Berrow
AIR it was not the charter that was the problem. It was using it as a
method of getting round the anti-spam rules.
Rob Morley
Why not just encourage posters to uk.* groups to include something like
Learn how UK newsgroups are working for you at http://www.usenet.org.uk/
in their sigs?
Matthew Vernon
> It is not reasonable to bemoan the lack of participation in an election
> if the majority of potential voters have not been notified that an
> election is taking place.
It did strike me as a bit odd that anything that might be seen as
canvassing is forbidden outside of unnm for committee elections - that
obviously makes sense for {new,rm}group votes, but perhaps less so for
committee elections? Mod the charters of the groups themselves, natch.
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
Molly Mockford
in <20091201171532.571b1b18@bluemoon>:
>Why not just encourage posters to uk.* groups to include something like
>Learn how UK newsgroups are working for you at http://www.usenet.org.uk/
>in their sigs?
It's been tried. A semi-organised group of volunteers put appropriate
messages in their sigs when posting to their usual range of newsgroups.
Unfortunately it didn't result in any new people arriving here, let
alone new people filled with enthusiasm to participate in the management
of the hierarchy.
It could be that the messages in the sigs weren't noticed at all; or
that they were simply ignored. And, of course, you can't ensure that
every group is covered; or that the sigs wouldn't be accidentally used
in groups outside the uk.* hierarchy, thus potentially attracting the
interest of those who wouldn't be entitled to vote because they were not
users of uk.* newsgroups. (Of course, if they hung around and joined in
the discussions, they would as a result *become* users - but if they
only tried to vote, they wouldn't be entitled to.)
By and large, most users just want Usenet to work. They're no more
interested in how and why it works than I am interested in how and why
my DVD recorder works.
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
Geoff Berrow
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>>Why not just encourage posters to uk.* groups to include something like
>>Learn how UK newsgroups are working for you at http://www.usenet.org.uk/
>>in their sigs?
>
>It's been tried. A semi-organised group of volunteers put appropriate
>messages in their sigs when posting to their usual range of newsgroups.
You can officially be my memory. I'd forgotten about that - uk.*
agents.
tony
> Obviously sending messages simultaneously to all uk groups is out
> because of spam rules. Would it be possible to send individual
> messages
> along the lines of:
>
> This newsgroup, uk.abc.lmn.xyz, was created in <year> by the UK
> Usenet Committee.
>
> Then a very brief mention that committee members are elected by uk.*
> users, and then a reference to unna as being the place to observe and
> participate in the formation of new ngs, etc.
>
> I don't think that would carry the (unintended) implied criticism that
> posting a ng's charter would have.
Any method we can imagine for avoiding spam issues, and still managing
to post substantially the same message to all of uk.* has already been
tried by spammers and is going to fall foul of filters.
We tried .sig messages, we tried charters, we tried just highlighting
the elections. I welcome any fresh ideas, but 'we' did expend
significant effort ~8 years ago and made little impact.
--
posted on the move, sorry for the brevity (replace invalid with .co.uk,
damn client won't let me set a reply-to)
Pedt
Dec 2009, Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wibbled
>Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
>
>> It is not reasonable to bemoan the lack of participation in an election
>> if the majority of potential voters have not been notified that an
>> election is taking place.
>
>It did strike me as a bit odd that anything that might be seen as
>canvassing is forbidden outside of unnm for committee elections - that
>obviously makes sense for {new,rm}group votes, but perhaps less so for
>committee elections?
I think it's the thought that if people start canvassing for one side or
the other, whether candidates or not, in groups where those of who have
a different viewpoint then it's unfair on those who don't know about the
post and therefore have no effective right of reply. Neutral posts for
the Committee elections pointing people to unna and unnm(anagement) are
obviously fine in uk.* without favouring any party - your first post in
uk.misc or Mark's in uk.religion.christian fall into this category IMO.
What is likely to unacceptable is "vote for me and this is why" or "I'm
voting for these people and this is why" type postings. Posts into non
uk.* groups on any flavour are, to my mind, a no-no as there'll always
be a number of posters in those groups, even if public, who don't read
uk.*
Funnily enough, I should have thought sooner of chucking a neutral post
into uk.announce that the elections were happening and people should
read the hustings discussions and then the CFV when it appeared and make
their own mind up. By the time I remembered, hustings had opened, I'd
asked some open questions and engaged in subsequent discussion so it
didn't feel right to me to post a neutral pointer there as I'd probably
have to moderate the post. Don't know how many people might have u.a in
their subscription list although I've had it in mainly in my .sig for
what seems like ages but I thought it better then not to. (First time
we've had an election vote since I started moderating u.a).
Personal thoughts only.
>Mod the charters of the groups themselves, natch.
Think you've hit the nail on the head there ;-)
Molly Mockford
wrote in <ktkah5te37pqs0if0...@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:26:19 +0000, Molly Mockford
><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Why not just encourage posters to uk.* groups to include something like
>>>Learn how UK newsgroups are working for you at http://www.usenet.org.uk/
>>>in their sigs?
>>
>>It's been tried. A semi-organised group of volunteers put appropriate
>>messages in their sigs when posting to their usual range of newsgroups.
>
>You can officially be my memory. I'd forgotten about that - uk.*
>agents.
Thank *you* for reminding me of what we called ourselves - I originally
included in my post "dot-star agents", but then doubted, and googled,
and found nothing. So I deleted that bit.
I'll buy you a drink as and when! ;-)
John Hall
Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
<snip>
>I'm sure this question has been raised before, but shouldn't
>notifications of committee elections be posted to all uk.* newsgroups?
I think that is an excellent idea. It might also make it less likely
that some individual might post a notification to some groups in such a
form that it prejudice people for or against certain candidates.
John Hall
I must admit to being surprised that it's so high. I suppose sine people
use multiple addresses, and some may be accounted for by spam posts (if
you haven't been able to filter them out), but it's still clearly a lot
higher than I had been expecting. How long a period does your data
cover?
Pedt
Tue, 1 Dec 2009, John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wibbled
>In article <87vdgqx...@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>,
> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>I count about 17,000 distinct From: lines in uk.*, with about 10,000
>>of them appearing on more than one posting. As you say there is a lot
>>of uncertainty in these numbers but I think it's safe to conclude that
>>the turnout was under 2%.
>>
>
>I must admit to being surprised that it's so high. I suppose sine people
>use multiple addresses, and some may be accounted for by spam posts (if
>you haven't been able to filter them out), but it's still clearly a lot
>higher than I had been expecting. How long a period does your data
>cover?
Higher than I thought as well. I was expecting around 3,000 or so if
anyone had figures. Be a bit skewed as you say if people use different
addresses for different groups (I do as ulm didn't like "\"@ @\""@)
and I presume it will catch anyone in the numbers who has changed their
From: for whatever reason (like moving ISP or changing domain name).
Be interesting to know if the 10,000 or so is before or after spam
filtering. I'm guessing that most of the 7,000 difference are spam
postings.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<sal...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>A quick look in my sent mail folder shows that a rejection mail was sent
>at 5:16 on the 25th of October as you hadn't filled in your name on the
>ballot paper, but no corrected vote was received. (Which also means
>there's a couple of missing lines in the results).
That never arrived, so I guess it was either spamtrapped or lost in a
mail server fault I experienced a few weeks back. No matter, and I
certainly wasn't blaming you.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.
Barry Salter
Though looking at the spreadsheet, I can see that your vote was received
on the 16th of November, timed at 02:43, and checking my mail log I sent
the ack at 16:07 on the 17th.
*rummages through the Queries folder*
Oops...Just spotted your query e-mail, but clearly forgot to reply to it.
Ack duly resent, just in case you want one.
Cheers,
Barry
Barry Salter
back and forth somewhere :D (That, and you'd also find the heavy duty
laser printer where I work spewing out ballot papers left, right and
centre).
Having said that, theoretically a larger number of votes should make for
less scary Maths during the count. ;-)
Cheers,
Barry
Adrian
like they were saying:
> Having said that, theoretically a larger number of votes should make for
> less scary Maths during the count. ;-)
Did he just volunteer to work with the Electoral Commission...?
Richard Kettlewell
> John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wibbled
>> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>I count about 17,000 distinct From: lines in uk.*, with about
>>>10,000 of them appearing on more than one posting. As you say
>>>there is a lot of uncertainty in these numbers but I think it's
>>>safe to conclude that the turnout was under 2%.
>>
>>I must admit to being surprised that it's so high. I suppose sine
>>people use multiple addresses, and some may be accounted for by spam
>>posts (if you haven't been able to filter them out), but it's still
>>clearly a lot higher than I had been expecting. How long a period
>>does your data cover?
It only counts recent postings - specifically, the 1,000 most recent
in each group, truncated in many cases by retention time. Someone who
only posted once a year might very well not be counted, for
instance. But there would have to be rather a lot of very-occasional
posters to materially affect the answer.
> Higher than I thought as well. I was expecting around 3,000 or so if
> anyone had figures. Be a bit skewed as you say if people use
> different addresses for different groups (I do as ulm didn't like
> "\"@ @\""@) and I presume it will catch anyone in the numbers who
> has changed their From: for whatever reason (like moving ISP or
> changing domain name).
>
> Be interesting to know if the 10,000 or so is before or after spam
> filtering. I'm guessing that most of the 7,000 difference are spam
> postings.
I didn't go to any effort to remove spam (and doing so would be quite
a bit more effort). I don't think that _many_ multiple-use addresses
can be unique to spam (although _some_ surely are): otherwise the view
of the hierarchy I have would be overrun with it. Equally I didn't
try to de-duplicate multiple addresses used by single individuals,
assuming that only a small proportion of people would be affected.
As I said there's a lot of uncertainty in the figures l-)
Andy Burns
> Having said that, theoretically a larger number of votes should make for
> less scary Maths during the count. ;-)
Mind if I ask why it's carried out on paper? Don't you trust them there
computers ...
Barry Salter
double check to make sure the count's correct.
Cheers,
Barry
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:21:45 +0000, Barry Salter
><sal...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>A quick look in my sent mail folder shows that a rejection mail was sent
>>at 5:16 on the 25th of October as you hadn't filled in your name on the
>>ballot paper, but no corrected vote was received. (Which also means
>>there's a couple of missing lines in the results).
>
>That never arrived, so I guess it was either spamtrapped or lost in a
>mail server fault I experienced a few weeks back. No matter, and I
>certainly wasn't blaming you.
>
>Guy
Fascinating - I don't think I have ever lost a single email which was
sent to me.
Are you perhaps just incompetent - or perhaps not computer literate?
Pedt
on Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wibbled
Interesting set of figures overall.
Graham Drabble
news:AWO6ttKj...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid:
> I must admit to being surprised that it's so high. I suppose sine
> people use multiple addresses, and some may be accounted for by
> spam posts (if you haven't been able to filter them out), but it's
> still clearly a lot higher than I had been expecting. How long a
> period does your data cover?
Looking at the Dr Death stats since 1st July (taken from fairly well
filtered servers), there have been 20,552 unique from headers of which
6579 have been seen > 5 times.
--
Graham Drabble
"Usenet is mostly just a geek entertainment system that far too many
people try to pretend as some type of "real" value to society."
Curt Welch - news.software.nntp
Tim Sharrock
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>What does concern me a little, though, is that 178 valid ballot requests
>resulted in only 129 valid and counted votes.
I am one of them, I thought I had voted, but can find no sign of it
in my sent folder, so I must have lost it at some time before
sending it :( but as it was another matching the standard pattern of
votes it would have made little difference :)
Tim
--
Tim Sharrock (t...@sharrock.org.uk)
Dave J.
30 Nov 2009 19:44:26 +0000, in uk.net.news.management, 'Mark Goodge'
wrote:
>Some people request a ballot but decide not to vote bcause they can't
>be bothered.
Not quite here, try request a ballot, but be so far behind on usenet that
the date catches you unawares :-)
Sorry all. The result is (fortunately) exactly as per the ballot I'd
filled in before I saw the date so no great loss this time. Don't know
whether I'm pleased nothing would have been changed, or irked at my
presence amongst the great flock of sheeple :-)
Dave J.
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
> Don't know
>whether I'm pleased nothing would have been changed, or irked at my
>presence amongst the great flock of sheeple :-)
Perhaps you've finally managed to convince us all to think your way?
;-)
Dave J.
07:55:13 +0000, in uk.net.news.management, 'Roger Chapman' wrote:
>Owen Dunn wrote:
>> Roger Chapman <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> What bothers me about this election is the numbers taking part. only
>>> 130 votes cast. Anyone capable of organising a piss-up in a brewery
>>> would have had no problem managing a coup d'etat had they wanted to.
>>
>> That's democracy - decisions are made by those who show up. For an
>> election to a small committee 130 votes seems quite good to me.
>>
>
>It is not the size of the committee but the lack of votes that bothers
>me. The potential electorate is surely such that 130 amounts to a
>derisory proportion.
Yeahbut the great majority of users neither know nor care about the
background chit-chat here. If a voter is in that grouping would you really
*want* their essentially random choices to be included? I'd see it as
background noise.
Even if there was no influence from how nice a candidate's name sounds or
how friendly their email domain is thought to be or some equally silly
bias, there would have to be a huge number (large enough sample) to ensure
the randomness equalled zero influence. And that's the *best* result
possible.
What you should be worried about (if anything) is the apparent number of
subscribers here and in unnc.
TBH there's a preferable range for the number of subscribers to a usenet
group, somewhere between not enough representation of different attitudes
and so full more trouble than worth. IMHO UNN* are just about within. (if
sometimes at the low end of) that range.
Dave J.
Dave J.
MsgID<1461170031281383872.5284...@news.eternal-september.org>
on Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:16:45 +0000 (UTC), in uk.net.news.management, 'tony'
wrote:
>We tried .sig messages, we tried charters, we tried just highlighting
>the elections.
>I welcome any fresh ideas, but 'we' did expend
>significant effort ~8 years ago and made little impact.
Best I can think is something that could be tried on new groups, which is
kind of pointless because it's so unlikely that new groups, after any
given future date, will ever amount to even a significantly sized fraction
of a percentage.
However, for sake of debate; the idea is for RFDs for new groups to
include the mention of a 'standard bearer' for the group. Someone who's
responsibility it is to look after the group's interest in the hierarchy
and to represent that group for global decision making. Things perhaps
like new groups being created with similar/related subjects or new groups
being proposed nearby in the hierarchy; doesn't really matter what things,
it's the concept that's important.
If there was a 'flag bearer' named in RFDs (perhaps conventionally the
proponent) and if a convention was established whereby ukv would hold a
ballot for replacement should they ever step down or disappear then you'd
(/we'd [TINW]) have a 'gateway' into the group.
A list could be maintained and that person could be auto-emailed either
anything related to the group or anything posted to uk.net.news.announce.
Yes, I know, they could/should just subscribe. However, IMHO, it'd be much
easier to persuade someone to receive emails in exchange for a perceived
'status' than to persuade them to subscribe to a group. Sad but I belive
true. It would also build in a legitimacy for postings that would
otherwise be offtopic.
If such a thing was established then the existing groups might, slowly, be
persuaded to nominate someone for the post.
Only a thought. I did say I reckon it's way too late in the day, but I did
think, and you did ask :-)
There remains the question of whether increased participation would be a
good thing. The IQ of a democracy is 100. OK, I believe a usenet democracy
will be slightly higher, but I reckon it's still going to be lower (within
this subset of intelect) than those who actively *choose* to get involved
in thinking and planning for the future.
Dave J.
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>Only a thought. I did say I reckon it's way too late in the day, but I did
>think, and you did ask :-)
Thank you for that. us.* had a similar idea of a newsgroup host
(always thought it made their setup sound like a game show), but AFAIK
they never did anything with it.
I think it could work but unfortunately, yes, I agree about the
lateness in the day.