 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Ausadmin > wrote:
[snippage throughout] I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.* hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ as no longer relevant? A reminder: Creation of new newsgroups does not happen in a vacuum - other newsgroups may well be affected, rec.food.cooking in this particular case. There is little doubt that some valuable traffic may be potentially diverted from rfc, thus damaging it, if only very slightly. This, in itself, is a good enough reason to oppose the creation of any such new newsgroup and the only reason to the contrary that is still better is statistical evidence of enough interest in recent years in the proposed topic to sustain the new newsgroup. Some people may ask why such an evidence is important if there is to be a vote which will show actual interest in the new group. The answer is of course that the vote shows only the current interest, a moment's snapshot, which may be influenced by many irrelevant factors. The statistical evidence of long-term interest supplements the current one. Come to think of it, why go through the motions of holding a vote at all, then? Just create the bloody newsgroup and if people want to use it, they will. What's the use of the aus.* hierarchy at all? The alt.* one would be perfectly adequate. > Other newsgroups that discuss food are completly oriented towards > every other country except Australia. This part of the rationale is not just misleading - it is untrue. rec.food.cooking is a global newsgroup and is oriented towards any country that happens to be discussed at any one point. This has been pointed to the proponent early in the course of the RFD discussion. Nothing happened, of course. Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
[aus.net.news removed]
Victor Sack > wrote in message . .. [snip] > I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to > provide an estimate of expected traffic for the proposed > newsgroup and the current traffic on the net related to this > topic, [snip] Which is enough reason to vote no for this proposal. When someone votes no, then the yes votes require an even greater number of yes votes. This can be very tough on a 'group with a finite following. If the vote doesn't meet (and I'm blanking on the actual percentage but it's huge) the hierarchy's requirement, the proposed 'group doesn't get the necessary permissions. But... People have to vote. (Even abstaining is a strike against the formation of a new 'group.) The Ranger |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
[posting from aus.net.news]
Victor Sack > wrote: > I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an > estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current > traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian ISTR some discussion, and stats quotage, a couple of months ago, probably in the pre-RFD period. > reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has > been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.* I don't have time to google at the moment, but some some references should come up. > particular case. There is little doubt that some valuable traffic may > be potentially diverted from rfc, thus damaging it, if only very > slightly. This, in itself, is a good enough reason to oppose the If it's "very slightly" then it doesn't sound like that big an issue. Though that remains a valid point. > it, they will. What's the use of the aus.* hierarchy at all? The alt.* > one would be perfectly adequate. Now that's just insulting. I've been active in both regional and international newsgroups over the years though little of either these days. Sometimes both on the same topic, simply because of the different flavour of a local group vs an international perspective. I used to hang out in news.groups several years ago and aus.net.news for many years, and a.n.n is much, more relaxed than n.g but then the number of posts is orders of magnitude lower. That doesn't mean newsgroups in aus.* should be created willy nilly, however there has been quite a bit of a discussion on this proposal and seems to have a fair bit of support. -- snail @ smacktard net http://snail.ws/ A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Frost. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Victor Sack) writes:
>I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an >estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current >traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian >perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the >reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has >been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.* >hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ >as no longer relevant? No, you're just too late. We've moved on from the RFD already, and are in the voting phase now. The proposal now stands or falls on its own merit, inadequate or not. Nick. -- http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/ I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
augie > wrote:
> Do you plan to join in on aus.food, if the proposal is successful? This is a distinct possibility, if only a very occasional one. Why do you ask? > I rarely see you contribute to Australian posters or Australian threads > in RFC, so cannot fathom what type of negative impact the new group > would have on you. Why is it my person that is important here? I care, first and foremost about the rec.food.cooking as a whole, not necessarily my person. FWIW, I do respond to Australian posters and threads whenever I see fit... no difference to any other nationality, including my own. > As for the impact on RFC, surely only the people who are active on > Australian threads would notice the difference - and from what I can see > they are the ones who are positive about it's implementation. You are very much mistaken here - every difference matters, if only a bit, and when those differences add up, the whole newsgroup changes quite considerably. Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
snail > wrote:
> Victor Sack > wrote: > > I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an > > estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current > > traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian > > ISTR some discussion, and stats quotage, a couple of months ago, > probably in the pre-RFD period. *Please* post the evidence! > > reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has > > been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.* > > I don't have time to google at the moment, but some some references > should come up. *Post* them, please, or ask someone else with more time on his hands. Really, I would like nothing better than to see some honest statistical evidence of real interest over the recent years. That would take care of the whole problem, as far as I'm concerned. It is one thing if there are, say, at least five posts a day on the relevant topics, and quite another if there are perhaps only a couple posts per month. > > it, they will. What's the use of the aus.* hierarchy at all? The alt.* > > one would be perfectly adequate. > > Now that's just insulting. Well, it was meant to be more facetious than insulting, but insulting wouldn't be at all out of place, either. The difference between alt.* and aus.* (and other ostensibly "serious" hierarchies) is some standards of new group creation. One of these standards, evidence of the viability of the new group, is lacking in this case, making the aus.* effectively equivalent to the alt.* I would say that anyone with even a bit of respect to the aus.* hierarchy, or at least to what it is supposed to be, ought to vote NO on this proposal, if only out of principle. The whole thing is really not just about this one proposed newsgroup - one has to take a larger view. Is this all only about the instant-gratification, me-generation people who demand the new group *now!* because that's what a few of them *want now!*, or is the whole aus.* thing perhaps worthy of some more concern? Just asking... in this case *my* concern is mostly rec.food.cooking... FWIW, another, better, proposal can be made in a few months time, I imagine, if this one fails for some reason. It is not as though people are prevented from having what they want for the eternity. > That doesn't mean newsgroups > in aus.* should be created willy nilly, however there has > been quite a bit of a discussion on this proposal and seems > to have a fair bit of support. What discussion? Mine was the only criticism at all, as far as I can see - and it was totally ignored. Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nick Andrew > wrote:
> (Victor Sack) writes: > > >I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an > >estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current > >traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian > >perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the > >reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has > >been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.* > >hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ > >as no longer relevant? > > No, you're just too late. We've moved on from the RFD already, and are > in the voting phase now. Eh, I posted what was effectively the very same thing, more than once even, even quoting parts of the aus.* FAQ, *during the RFD discussion* - and nothing happened. > The proposal now stands or falls on its own > merit, inadequate or not. That is obvious enough about *now*. What about *before*? Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nick Andrew wrote: > (Victor Sack) writes: > > >I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an > >estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current > >traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian > >perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the > >reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has > >been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.* > >hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ > >as no longer relevant? > > No, you're just too late. We've moved on from the RFD already, and are > in the voting phase now. The proposal now stands or falls on its own > merit, inadequate or not. > > Nick. > -- > http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/ > I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply. This would appear to support Victor's and the Ranger's points and suggest to non-Ozzian RFC members that if they wish to keep reading postings related to OZ in the same forum as they read postings related to most other cookings rather than in some inadequately described and discussed forum it is in their interest to vote AGAINST the creation of this group. -bwg |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Victor Sack" > wrote in message .. . > augie > wrote: .. > > You are very much mistaken here - every difference matters, if only a > bit, and when those differences add up, the whole newsgroup changes > quite considerably. > > Victor sorry to get all philosophical, but isn't that what life (& newsgroups) is all about? - change. everything changes. we can't keep things how they are forever. change happens. it seems like there is only a small percentage of australian posters on rec.food.cooking compared to other countries. i know you say that makes a difference. but what if aus.food was denied and these australian posters still decided all to unsubscribe or just lurk? the flavour of the newsgroup would still change. it's just not possible to control other people's behaviour like that. i know from my own unrelated newsgroup (aus.family) that many of the posters that would come to aus.food would be from aus.family. we have been interested in this for ages & would love a separate newsgroup for talking about food rather than on aus.family which is technically about parenting. and this is not the only place that people wanting aus.food come from. there are many people in australian newsgroups that have never, ever visited rec.food.cooking which want aus.food. are you suggesting that these people all have no right to have a newsgroup they want? i think this extends beyond the boundaries of changing one newsgroup slightly. it is what a sizeable (to our little country, anyway) number of people would like to see happen. (i know you keep asking for statistics, but i have no idea on how to do that! but you could google aus.family to see how many food related posts there are!) i hope you still find rec.food.cooking an enjoyable place to go, whether aus.food happens or not. -- elizabeth (in australia) DS 20th august 2002 #2 due 14th october 2005 (currently: 35 weeks) "Worry is like a rocking chair--it gives you something to do but it doesn't get you anywhere." -- Anonymous |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Victor Sack > wrote:
> snail > wrote: >> Victor Sack > wrote: >> > I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an >> > estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current >> > traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian >> ISTR some discussion, and stats quotage, a couple of months ago, >> probably in the pre-RFD period. > *Please* post the evidence! How about you google aus.net.news yourself ? >> > reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has >> > been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.* >> I don't have time to google at the moment, but some some references >> should come up. > *Post* them, please, or ask someone else with more time on his hands. I just asked you  Anyway I just had a brief look throughand found plenty of discussion, checked a few posts at random, but didn't find stats. Using keywords like postings, statistics, and a couple of others. I'm posting here as a denizen of aus.net.news. I'm vaguely interested in whether this group gets up or not, as previous attempts over the years have failed. This time round there seems to be a lot more folk interested; certainly there's been a lot more folk posting this time round which is at least indicative that the group might be used. > Really, I would like nothing better than to see some honest statistical > evidence of real interest over the recent years. That would take care There were previous attempts to create groups in 2000 and 2001 I think. Let's see, how about the old CFV results: http://groups.google.com/group/aus.n...4deab752abe0de previous dicussion of older RFDs: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=aus.net.news+gourmand oooh, forgot about my attempt in 2003 which is referred to in discussion back in May: http://groups.google.com/group/aus.n...bf0c6d73013ff6 Crikey, I forgot my own proposal, I knew I was having a bad week but this is silly. > of the whole problem, as far as I'm concerned. It is one thing if there > are, say, at least five posts a day on the relevant topics, and quite > another if there are perhaps only a couple posts per month. That I agree with you on. >> > it, they will. What's the use of the aus.* hierarchy at all? The alt.* >> > one would be perfectly adequate. >> Now that's just insulting. > Well, it was meant to be more facetious than insulting, but insulting > wouldn't be at all out of place, either. The difference between alt.* *grin* Either way it was a bit of a wank. > and aus.* (and other ostensibly "serious" hierarchies) is some standards Well that's one of the differences, another is that alt is a global hyraky ( ) where as aus.*, uk.* are country based;or melb.* syd.* which are city based. Another example is film. There's plenty of good international discussion groups for film but aus.film is needed simply because of differing release schedules and a place for locals to hang. > of new group creation. One of these standards, evidence of the > viability of the new group, is lacking in this case, making the aus.* > effectively equivalent to the alt.* Bullshit. Honest Even if that one standard were lacking, it'sstill not even close to reducing aus.* to the standards of alt.* > I would say that anyone with even a bit of respect to the aus.* > hierarchy, or at least to what it is supposed to be, ought to vote NO on > this proposal, if only out of principle. The whole thing is really not > just about this one proposed newsgroup - one has to take a larger view. Nope, my main interest these days is in local groups. I choose not to take a big 8 view. r.f.c seems a big, happy group but for me the effect on that group seems minor and not especially relevant. There'll still be some Oz posters there, and there may well be room for a local group too. > Is this all only about the instant-gratification, me-generation people > who demand the new group *now!* because that's what a few of them *want > now!*, or is the whole aus.* thing perhaps worthy of some more concern? No now about it, food proposals in aus.* have come up several times before and failed and may well fail again, or succeed. > Just asking... in this case *my* concern is mostly rec.food.cooking... Your concern is fair enough for you; I don't see why "one has to take a larger view". That's your stance not mine. > FWIW, another, better, proposal can be made in a few months time, I > imagine, if this one fails for some reason. It is not as though people > are prevented from having what they want for the eternity. Well, it's been about 5 years since it was first proposed and it still hasn't got up. Maybe folk will have to wait an eternity >> That doesn't mean newsgroups >> in aus.* should be created willy nilly, however there has >> been quite a bit of a discussion on this proposal and seems >> to have a fair bit of support. > What discussion? Mine was the only criticism at all, as far as I can > see - and it was totally ignored. Go back a couple of months...probably April/May and there's been a bunch of food related postings in a.n.n in that time too. -- snail @ smacktard net http://snail.ws/ A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Frost. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Victor Sack with some words for
aus.net.news: }snail > wrote: <snip> }Really, I would like nothing better than to see some honest statistical }evidence of real interest over the recent years. That would take care }of the whole problem, as far as I'm concerned. It is one thing if there }are, say, at least five posts a day on the relevant topics, and quite }another if there are perhaps only a couple posts per month. And another thing again if there are a couple of hundred posts per month, of which only five are ostensibly on topic. Would that be a successful group, in your opinion? (That's a serious question, by the way- I'm genuinely interested in your view). Estimated traffic is important to a proposed group (though perhaps not, to my mind, as important as the heavily Big 8-influenced FAQ makes it out to be). However, it's open to aus.admin to accept a RFD without this information, and to allow it to proceed to a CFV (as has happened)- at this point, the vote will determine the outcome, and (should it pass) history will determine the validity. Your argument, whilst relevant and not answered (to my knowledge, anyway) during the RFD phase, has been overtaken by events. }Well, it was meant to be more facetious than insulting, but insulting }wouldn't be at all out of place, either. The difference between alt.* }and aus.* (and other ostensibly "serious" hierarchies) is some standards }of new group creation. One of these standards, evidence of the }viability of the new group, is lacking in this case, making the aus.* }effectively equivalent to the alt.* I freely admit I don't have an analysis here (and any such would have to wait until the weekend at the earliest), but I *suspect* the aus.* hierarchy has a respectable percentage of active groups relative to some of the Big 8- notably rec.* (counting traffic as the sole indication of activity), even allowing for the shorter period of existence. That suggests to me that while the creation process may be flawed, it does produce the result it was designed for. }I would say that anyone with even a bit of respect to the aus.* }hierarchy, or at least to what it is supposed to be, ought to vote NO on }this proposal, if only out of principle. The whole thing is really not }just about this one proposed newsgroup - one has to take a larger view. }Is this all only about the instant-gratification, me-generation people }who demand the new group *now!* because that's what a few of them *want }now!*, or is the whole aus.* thing perhaps worthy of some more concern? }Just asking... in this case *my* concern is mostly rec.food.cooking... Would it damage the aus.* hierarchy more than, say, aus.tv.reality? To attract a "no" vote from me, I'd have to be satisfied that the answer was that it would- since the process for creating a group in this hierarchy has been largely followed, I'm not convinced there's a procedural justification for a no vote. }FWIW, another, better, proposal can be made in a few months time, I }imagine, if this one fails for some reason. It is not as though people }are prevented from having what they want for the eternity. You may not be aware that this is the second proposal for aus.food to be presented. The first was on the order of three years ago, IIRC. }> That doesn't mean newsgroups }> in aus.* should be created willy nilly, however there has }> been quite a bit of a discussion on this proposal and seems }> to have a fair bit of support. } }What discussion? Mine was the only criticism at all, as far as I can }see - and it was totally ignored. I've also expressed some concerns (largely in aus.net.news), but it's ... impolite at best to discuss the merits of a proposal during the CFV, so I leave it to those keen enough to look for them. I fear I've discussed it too much in this post already. I don't think I have a dog in this fight, as our American cousins may say, but I am somewhat curious about the result of the vote. -- Brett "I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
arachne > wrote:
> sorry to get all philosophical, but isn't that what life (& newsgroups) is > all about? - change. everything changes. we can't keep things how they are > forever. change happens. Why get so fatalistic? People are in control of a lot of things that happen to them and creation - or not - of newsgroups is one of them. > it seems like there is only a small percentage of australian posters on > rec.food.cooking compared to other countries. i know you say that makes a > difference. but what if aus.food was denied and these australian posters > still decided all to unsubscribe or just lurk? the flavour of the newsgroup > would still change. it's just not possible to control other people's > behaviour like that. It is possible to control one's own behaviour, though. And, why assume Australian posters are particularly stupid and will cut into their own flesh just out of spite? > i know from my own unrelated newsgroup (aus.family) that many of the posters > that would come to aus.food would be from aus.family. we have been > interested in this for ages & would love a separate newsgroup for talking > about food rather than on aus.family which is technically about parenting. Good, simply great! Who are those posters? How many of them? How many posting on the matter have appeared over the recent years? They could be a part of statistics that would show some evidence of enough interest to sustain the new newsgroup. Otherwise it is just empty talk, I'm afraid. > and this is not the only place that people wanting aus.food come from. there > are many people in australian newsgroups that have never, ever visited > rec.food.cooking which want aus.food. are you suggesting that these people > all have no right to have a newsgroup they want? No one has a right to a newsgroup. What you get to read is ultimately decided by the newsadmins of ISPs and independent newsservers. Those newsadmins pay attention to "serious" hierarchies and control messages coming from approved sources precisely because they assume that new newsgroups are created in a serious fashion, and are not just based on hearsay or proclamations of nonexistent rights. > i think this extends beyond the boundaries of changing one newsgroup > slightly. it is what a sizeable (to our little country, anyway) number of > people would like to see happen. (i know you keep asking for statistics, but > i have no idea on how to do that! but you could google aus.family to see how > many food related posts there are!) Well, I answered that question, twice even, I believe. It has always been the job of the proponents and, if they don't know how, they ought to find someone who does. I even suggested David Formosa, thinking that even if he can't help personally, he can possibly point to someone who can. Has anyone asked him? > i hope you still find rec.food.cooking an enjoyable place to go, whether > aus.food happens or not. I hope so, too. And I also hope that, if aus.food does happen, it will be an enjoyable place to visit, too. I'm not going to sulk, unlike those hypothetical Australians of whom you apparently have such a low opinion. :-) Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Craig Welch > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:53:27 +0200, (Victor > Sack) wrote: > > >What discussion? Mine was the only criticism at all, as far as I can > >see - and it was totally ignored. > > That is to say, you didn't get your way. That's a total non-sequitur. Completely illogical. > A lack of affirmation is not indicative of being ignored. A lack of any response is. > I didn't ignore you, for one. I read all that you wrote. I disagree > with most of what you wrote. You are welcome. > As plainly do others. How in the world do you know if they agree or disagree? Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brett Mount > wrote:
> And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Victor Sack with some words for > aus.net.news: > > }Really, I would like nothing better than to see some honest statistical > }evidence of real interest over the recent years. That would take care > }of the whole problem, as far as I'm concerned. It is one thing if there > }are, say, at least five posts a day on the relevant topics, and quite > }another if there are perhaps only a couple posts per month. > > And another thing again if there are a couple of hundred posts per month, > of which only five are ostensibly on topic. This would only be relevant in an already existing newsgroup. > Would that be a successful > group, in your opinion? (That's a serious question, by the way- I'm > genuinely interested in your view). I don't know if I want to generalise like that. I can, however, point to the many of the soc.culture.* newsgroups that are exactly like your description. I would say they are dead, for all practical purposes. On the other hand, maybe you mean some existing newsgroup where all of those off-topic posts are on the subject of Australian food. ;-) > Estimated traffic is important to a proposed group (though perhaps not, to > my mind, as important as the heavily Big 8-influenced FAQ makes it out to > be). However, it's open to aus.admin to accept a RFD without this > information, and to allow it to proceed to a CFV (as has happened)- at > this point, the vote will determine the outcome, and (should it pass) > history will determine the validity. Your argument, whilst relevant and > not answered (to my knowledge, anyway) during the RFD phase, has been > overtaken by events. Not at all. The discussion goes on and can change people opinions and votes. For example, I have not voted yet and, if some honest stats that show the groups viability are posted, I shall abstain or vote YES. It is not as though these stats must be included in the charter or even the rationale. They may just be a part of the dicussion. BTW, something that Nick once posted about multiple voting attempts made me think that only the first vote is counted and the others ignored. If this is indeed so, it is rather unfortunate. In my opinion, only the last vote should be counted in such a case, not the first one. This is how it is done in the Big-8 hierarchies, FWIW. People do sometimes change their opinion in the course of a discussion. > I freely admit I don't have an analysis here (and any such would have to > wait until the weekend at the earliest), but I *suspect* the aus.* > hierarchy has a respectable percentage of active groups relative to some > of the Big 8- notably rec.* (counting traffic as the sole indication of > activity), even allowing for the shorter period of existence. > > That suggests to me that while the creation process may be flawed, it does > produce the result it was designed for. Has the process always been flawed, as you put it, at least as far as not presenting an estimate of future traffic on the newsgroup is concerned? Or is this a recent development? > Would it damage the aus.* hierarchy more than, say, aus.tv.reality? To > attract a "no" vote from me, I'd have to be satisfied that the answer was > that it would- since the process for creating a group in this hierarchy > has been largely followed, I'm not convinced there's a procedural > justification for a no vote. The form has been followed, for nowhere there is a requirement to present any statistical evidence. The spirit was ignored, though, for the form without substance is, of course, empty and pointless. The damage will be done if future proposals are treated this way also. It is, in my opinion, a seriously flawed proposal - gimme a better one, NOW! :-) I think aus.* deserves better. I therefore reluctantly call upon those who are still reading this thread and agree with my reasoning to vote NO and hope for a better proposal a few months from now. Please look up the CFV at <http://groups.google.com/group/aus.net.news/msg/cec6752ce58417b6> and follow the instructions. Make sure your address is unmunged. (I don't think my call will make any difference at all - people are just not really interested in the subject, at least on rec.food.cooking, and I'm not about to start campaigning. So, it is just a matter of principle...) > I've also expressed some concerns (largely in aus.net.news), but it's ... > impolite at best to discuss the merits of a proposal during the CFV, Why, pray tell? I'm truly puzzled. As long as there is an opportunity to vote, discussion should be allowed to go on. Or is this a peculiar aus.* custom? Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brett Mount > wrote:
> And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Victor Sack with some words for > aus.net.news: > } > }I don't know if I want to generalise like that. I can, however, point > }to the many of the soc.culture.* newsgroups that are exactly like your > }description. I would say they are dead, for all practical purposes. > > And the alt.* heirachy is notorious for them. A few years ago, I'd have > agreed with your assessment. You wouldn't agree now? > I believe the proponent has suggested there will be a reasonable overlap > of posters with aus.family, which seems to tend in that direction from a > quick glance at it. I don't think it's a stretch to indicate that > aus.food won't be as focussed as, say, sci.math.num-analysis. Ah, it would still be quite a bit different from those soc.culture newsgroups, I imagine, for many, if not all, of the off-topic postings would be presumably coming from people also posting on topic in the newsgroup. In soc.culture ones it is mostly crossposted trolling and flame-wars that have nothing at all to do with most of the affected newsgroups and with people posting there on topic. > }Not at all. The discussion goes on and can change people opinions and > }votes. For example, I have not voted yet and, if some honest stats that > }show the groups viability are posted, I shall abstain or vote YES. It > }is not as though these stats must be included in the charter or even the > }rationale. They may just be a part of the dicussion. > > Well, I'm not sure I agree. During the RFD phase several calls were > certainly made for a justification for aus.food, and were largely > unanswered. Prospective voters will no doubt have noted that omission, be > it deliberate or accidental, and will vote accordingly. The proponents > have had and lost the chance to address your concerns, and must now face > the consequences. As far as I'm concerend, they can address my concerns any time, right now, for example. I don't think they lost any chances until the voting is over. At least this ought to be so, logically. > Counting the first vote may simplify the logistics, I guess- I agree that > the last vote would seem to reflect the most recent (and most > considered?) opinion held by the voter, but in the absence of discussion > on the group's merits I wouldn't expect there to be all that many changes. > I believe the Big 8 rule is more about dissuading multiple votes than > determining a voter's true intent. I don't know what the original intent was, but at least for the past decade it has been both, in practice. A lot of people over the years have been pointing out that the vote may be changed by voting again. I think it would be a good idea to adopt the same practice in aus.* > The aus.* heirachy isn't really all that busy in terms of new groups > getting created all the time. It is no different in the Big-8 now, either. I think no more than about a dozen new groups are created each year now, just a fraction of the multitude created in '96 or '97, for example. > It's in Point 5 of the aus.admin FAQ at > <http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq> > > "It's requested that people refrain from discussing the newsgroup after > the CFV has been posted. The newsgroup should have been discussed in > the RFD period. You should also not promote your proposal during the > voting period, nor advise people only how to vote "YES"." Ah, I confess that I overlooked this point. > I'm unsure of the reasoning behind it- that may be a question better > directed to Mr Andrews. I hope he will answer. Only the last phrase, perhaps with the addition of a similar one about not advising people only how to vote "NO", makes sense to me. Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Victor Sack with some words for
aus.net.news: }Brett Mount > wrote: } }> And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Victor Sack with some words for }> aus.net.news: }> }> }Really, I would like nothing better than to see some honest statistical }> }evidence of real interest over the recent years. That would take care }> }of the whole problem, as far as I'm concerned. It is one thing if there }> }are, say, at least five posts a day on the relevant topics, and quite }> }another if there are perhaps only a couple posts per month. }> }> And another thing again if there are a couple of hundred posts per month, }> of which only five are ostensibly on topic. } }This would only be relevant in an already existing newsgroup. I'd suggest that it may be relevant if that's how the proposed group is likely to end up. }> Would that be a successful }> group, in your opinion? (That's a serious question, by the way- I'm }> genuinely interested in your view). } }I don't know if I want to generalise like that. I can, however, point }to the many of the soc.culture.* newsgroups that are exactly like your }description. I would say they are dead, for all practical purposes. And the alt.* heirachy is notorious for them. A few years ago, I'd have agreed with your assessment. }On the other hand, maybe you mean some existing newsgroup where all of }those off-topic posts are on the subject of Australian food. ;-) Possibly- I tend not to frequent groups at the chattier end of the spectrum (I think I have still have Trillian installed somewhere if I want that). I believe the proponent has suggested there will be a reasonable overlap of posters with aus.family, which seems to tend in that direction from a quick glance at it. I don't think it's a stretch to indicate that aus.food won't be as focussed as, say, sci.math.num-analysis. }> Estimated traffic is important to a proposed group (though perhaps not, to }> my mind, as important as the heavily Big 8-influenced FAQ makes it out to }> be). However, it's open to aus.admin to accept a RFD without this }> information, and to allow it to proceed to a CFV (as has happened)- at }> this point, the vote will determine the outcome, and (should it pass) }> history will determine the validity. Your argument, whilst relevant and }> not answered (to my knowledge, anyway) during the RFD phase, has been }> overtaken by events. } }Not at all. The discussion goes on and can change people opinions and }votes. For example, I have not voted yet and, if some honest stats that }show the groups viability are posted, I shall abstain or vote YES. It }is not as though these stats must be included in the charter or even the }rationale. They may just be a part of the dicussion. Well, I'm not sure I agree. During the RFD phase several calls were certainly made for a justification for aus.food, and were largely unanswered. Prospective voters will no doubt have noted that omission, be it deliberate or accidental, and will vote accordingly. The proponents have had and lost the chance to address your concerns, and must now face the consequences. }BTW, something that Nick once posted about multiple voting attempts made }me think that only the first vote is counted and the others ignored. If }this is indeed so, it is rather unfortunate. In my opinion, only the }last vote should be counted in such a case, not the first one. This is }how it is done in the Big-8 hierarchies, FWIW. People do sometimes }change their opinion in the course of a discussion. Counting the first vote may simplify the logistics, I guess- I agree that the last vote would seem to reflect the most recent (and most considered?) opinion held by the voter, but in the absence of discussion on the group's merits I wouldn't expect there to be all that many changes. I believe the Big 8 rule is more about dissuading multiple votes than determining a voter's true intent. }> I freely admit I don't have an analysis here (and any such would have to }> wait until the weekend at the earliest), but I *suspect* the aus.* }> hierarchy has a respectable percentage of active groups relative to some }> of the Big 8- notably rec.* (counting traffic as the sole indication of }> activity), even allowing for the shorter period of existence. }> }> That suggests to me that while the creation process may be flawed, it does }> produce the result it was designed for. } }Has the process always been flawed, as you put it, at least as far as }not presenting an estimate of future traffic on the newsgroup is }concerned? Or is this a recent development? I don't believe aus.family or aus.arts.anime were so supported, to mention the last couple of groups I recall off the top of my head. Aus.tv.reality, a few years ago, was (though not in a particularly formal way, to my mind). The aus.* heirachy isn't really all that busy in terms of new groups getting created all the time. }> Would it damage the aus.* hierarchy more than, say, aus.tv.reality? To }> attract a "no" vote from me, I'd have to be satisfied that the answer was }> that it would- since the process for creating a group in this hierarchy }> has been largely followed, I'm not convinced there's a procedural }> justification for a no vote. } }The form has been followed, for nowhere there is a requirement to }present any statistical evidence. The spirit was ignored, though, for }the form without substance is, of course, empty and pointless. The }damage will be done if future proposals are treated this way also. It }is, in my opinion, a seriously flawed proposal - gimme a better one, }NOW! :-) I think aus.* deserves better. It's certainly a supportable argument- as I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm curious to know how many others share your views to the extent of voting. }I therefore reluctantly call upon those who are still reading this }thread and agree with my reasoning to vote NO and hope for a better }proposal a few months from now. Please look up the CFV at }<http://groups.google.com/group/aus.net.news/msg/cec6752ce58417b6> and }follow the instructions. Make sure your address is unmunged. } }(I don't think my call will make any difference at all - people are just }not really interested in the subject, at least on rec.food.cooking, and }I'm not about to start campaigning. So, it is just a matter of }principle...) Everything on Usenet is a matter of principle. <G> }> I've also expressed some concerns (largely in aus.net.news), but it's ... }> impolite at best to discuss the merits of a proposal during the CFV, } }Why, pray tell? I'm truly puzzled. As long as there is an opportunity }to vote, discussion should be allowed to go on. Or is this a peculiar }aus.* custom? It's in Point 5 of the aus.admin FAQ at <http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq> "It's requested that people refrain from discussing the newsgroup after the CFV has been posted. The newsgroup should have been discussed in the RFD period. You should also not promote your proposal during the voting period, nor advise people only how to vote "YES"." I'm unsure of the reasoning behind it- that may be a question better directed to Mr Andrews. -- Brett "I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> As far as I'm concerend, they can address my concerns any time, right > now, for example. I don't think they lost any chances until the voting > is over. At least this ought to be so, logically. you've already made your mind up. Why should we try to change someone who is not willing to listen. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Leanne with some words for
aus.net.news: } }> As far as I'm concerend, they can address my concerns any time, right }> now, for example. I don't think they lost any chances until the voting }> is over. At least this ought to be so, logically. } }you've already made your mind up. Why should we try to change someone who is }not willing to listen. To convert an almost certain "No" vote into an abstain or possibly even a "Yes", I would've thought. Presuming you're in support of the group, you still have the 2/3 Yes and Yes= No+20 rules to consider- each No vote you can avoid is one (or possibly two) fewer supporters that you need. -- Brett "I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> To convert an almost certain "No" vote into an abstain or possibly even a > "Yes", I would've thought. > > Presuming you're in support of the group, you still have the 2/3 Yes and > Yes= No+20 rules to consider- each No vote you can avoid is one (or > possibly two) fewer supporters that you need. he has been given some really good answers to his questions already, there isn't much more you can do for someone who has made up his mind. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Leanne with some words for
aus.net.news: } }> To convert an almost certain "No" vote into an abstain or possibly even a }> "Yes", I would've thought. }> }> Presuming you're in support of the group, you still have the 2/3 Yes and }> Yes= No+20 rules to consider- each No vote you can avoid is one (or }> possibly two) fewer supporters that you need. } }he has been given some really good answers to his questions already, there }isn't much more you can do for someone who has made up his mind. I must confess that the estimates of traffic Mr Sack has been calling for did not reach the NIN server (or, if they did, they escaped my attention). However, you must remember that usenet is not a one to one system- while there may be reason to write Mr Sack's vote off, there are perhaps other potential voters reading who may be influenced by how he is answered now. -- Brett "I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In aus.net.news on Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:45:22 +1000
Brett Mount > wrote: > > However, you must remember that usenet is not a one to one system- while > there may be reason to write Mr Sack's vote off, there are perhaps other > potential voters reading who may be influenced by how he is answered now. I'm one... in that I knew it was on, didn't worry much, but have been reminded how rec.food.cooking isn't any use to me and how I'd like an Oz group. Either there's enough traffic to somehow make that group less or there isn't. If there isn't then I have contributed to it not being there If there is, then there's enough to have an aus group. Zebee -- Zebee Johnstone ), proud holder of aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1. "Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Victor Sack with some words for
aus.net.news: }Brett Mount > wrote: } }> And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Victor Sack with some words for }> aus.net.news: }> } }> }I don't know if I want to generalise like that. I can, however, point }> }to the many of the soc.culture.* newsgroups that are exactly like your }> }description. I would say they are dead, for all practical purposes. }> }> And the alt.* heirachy is notorious for them. A few years ago, I'd have }> agreed with your assessment. } }You wouldn't agree now? On balance, no, though I think there's a distinction to be drawn below. }> I believe the proponent has suggested there will be a reasonable overlap }> of posters with aus.family, which seems to tend in that direction from a }> quick glance at it. I don't think it's a stretch to indicate that }> aus.food won't be as focussed as, say, sci.math.num-analysis. } }Ah, it would still be quite a bit different from those soc.culture }newsgroups, I imagine, for many, if not all, of the off-topic postings }would be presumably coming from people also posting on topic in the }newsgroup. In soc.culture ones it is mostly crossposted trolling and }flame-wars that have nothing at all to do with most of the affected }newsgroups and with people posting there on topic. The ones I was thinking about are indeed more filled with cliquey behaviour by the regulars, which may occasionally even overlap the nominal topic of the group. After some deliberation, I've come to the conclusion that this may not always be a Bad Thing. Usenet vandalism such as you describe is a horse of a different colour. }> Well, I'm not sure I agree. During the RFD phase several calls were }> certainly made for a justification for aus.food, and were largely }> unanswered. Prospective voters will no doubt have noted that omission, be }> it deliberate or accidental, and will vote accordingly. The proponents }> have had and lost the chance to address your concerns, and must now face }> the consequences. } }As far as I'm concerend, they can address my concerns any time, right }now, for example. I don't think they lost any chances until the voting }is over. At least this ought to be so, logically. Logically, yes, but to do so would technically violate the procedures for group creation- I don't know, of course, to what extent the proponent feels bound by this. }> Counting the first vote may simplify the logistics, I guess- I agree that }> the last vote would seem to reflect the most recent (and most }> considered?) opinion held by the voter, but in the absence of discussion }> on the group's merits I wouldn't expect there to be all that many changes. }> I believe the Big 8 rule is more about dissuading multiple votes than }> determining a voter's true intent. } }I don't know what the original intent was, but at least for the past }decade it has been both, in practice. A lot of people over the years }have been pointing out that the vote may be changed by voting again. I }think it would be a good idea to adopt the same practice in aus.* Certainly, I can think of no reason why it is the way it is beyond administrative convenience. Given the (now slightly) lower thresholds for success in aus.* compared to the Big 8, I wonder if there's enough votes to make it worth the bother? }> The aus.* heirachy isn't really all that busy in terms of new groups }> getting created all the time. } }It is no different in the Big-8 now, either. I think no more than about }a dozen new groups are created each year now, just a fraction of the }multitude created in '96 or '97, for example. Well, there's not so much stuff to discuss these days, I guess. <G> Aus.* probably tends to something like one group per quarter, where news.groups probably sees that couple of weeks (it has been quieter recently, of course, save for discussions of voting procedure). It's the difference between a regional hierarchy and a global one. Usenet as a whole is probably losing ground in terms of popularity to web boards and blogs, though the extent to which that's happening; whether it's a Good Thing, and What Should Be Done About It all seem to be open questions at the moment. <snip: now re the reasons for not campaigning during a CFV> }> I'm unsure of the reasoning behind it- that may be a question better }> directed to Mr Andrews. } }I hope he will answer. Only the last phrase, perhaps with the addition }of a similar one about not advising people only how to vote "NO", makes }sense to me. I suspect organised Vote No campaigns were viewed as being a lesser risk, though the history of some of the more political groups in aus.* may make that assumption seem odd. -- Brett "I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Victor Sack) writes:
>Brett Mount > wrote: >I don't know what the original intent was, but at least for the past >decade it has been both, in practice. A lot of people over the years >have been pointing out that the vote may be changed by voting again. I >think it would be a good idea to adopt the same practice in aus.* At this point it's mostly a software issue. The voting instructions are simply appended to a text file as they are received; to allow later votes to override an earlier vote would require rewriting the file to delete the older vote and then append the newer vote. As it is, when a vote comes in, if there's already a vote there for that email address then the code just throws the new vote away and sends an error to the email address. If the voter wants to change their vote they can send me an email. >> "It's requested that people refrain from discussing the newsgroup after >> the CFV has been posted. The newsgroup should have been discussed in >> the RFD period. You should also not promote your proposal during the >> voting period, nor advise people only how to vote "YES"." >Ah, I confess that I overlooked this point. >> I'm unsure of the reasoning behind it- that may be a question better >> directed to Mr Andrews. Andrew, not Andrews. >I hope he will answer. Only the last phrase, perhaps with the addition >of a similar one about not advising people only how to vote "NO", makes >sense to me. Usually the proposer of a vote is interested in getting the vote passed. These are the people most likely to "advertise" a way to vote YES only. We haven't had any situation yet where somebody who is not the proponent takes it upon themselves to promote failing a group vote. I want to move the voting system to the website as soon as I can get the code written; there will be one button for YES and one button for NO, so I expect the issue will disappear. Nick. -- http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/ I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brett Mount > writes:
>I suspect organised Vote No campaigns were viewed as being a lesser risk, >though the history of some of the more political groups in aus.* may make >that assumption seem odd. Any proposal contentious enough to cause an organised "Vote No" campaign deserves to fail. There's clearly something wrong with the proposal, and a group won't go through until that problem is recognised and addressed. So I don't see it as a risk. There could still be otherwise-good proposals failed by a no-voting bloc if the group topic was particularly contentious. For example I would expect a group aus.abortion.centres would fail a vote because right-to-lifers would object to the possibility of pro-abortionists discussing (rating, etc) abortion centres. But if the group were to pass, then it would be a big flame fest anyway, so failing it is no loss. Nick. -- http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/ I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why bother, there are more important things in this world that need to
be heard and I might add HELPED !!! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're taking a lot of air time talking about NOTHING ! Who gives a
darn.. IF you d'ont like it here go home ! Just Me .... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nick Andrew > wrote in message
... [snip] > there will be one button for YES and one button for NO, Why not include an "ABSTAIN" button also for those readers that are ambivalent towards the formation of a proposed 'group? The Ranger |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Victor Sack wrote: > Nick Andrew > wrote: > > > (Victor Sack) writes: > > > > >I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an > > >estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current > > >traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian > > >perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the > > >reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has > > >been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.* > > >hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ > > >as no longer relevant? > > > > No, you're just too late. We've moved on from the RFD already, and are > > in the voting phase now. > > Eh, I posted what was effectively the very same thing, more than once > even, even quoting parts of the aus.* FAQ, *during the RFD discussion* - > and nothing happened. My god man get a LIFE. Wah Wah nothing happened. It's a simple call for votes for a new aus newsgroup. You don't like it? reply no! Simple really. I think you've made your points many, many times. I couldn't have cared less personally speaking, but seeing your attitude I think I will vote. Yes for me! > > The proposal now stands or falls on its own > > merit, inadequate or not. > > That is obvious enough about *now*. What about *before*? Move on, nothing more to see here. Doc |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carmen > wrote in message
... > Why bother Then cast a simple "No" vote and your wish will be granted. The Ranger |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carmen wrote:
> Why bother, there are more important things in this world that need to > be heard and I might add HELPED !!! They're also more important than whether you get anything to eat this week. Are you going to stop eating? -- Dan Goodman Journal http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/ Clutterers Anonymous unofficial community http://www.livejournal.com/community/clutterers_anon/ Decluttering http://decluttering.blogspot.com Predictions and Politics http://dsgood.blogspot.com All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies. John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Ranger wrote:
> Carmen > wrote in message > ... > >>Why bother > > > Then cast a simple "No" vote and your wish will be granted. > > The Ranger > > Amen! -- Cheers Cathy(xyz) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Nick Andrew with some words for
aus.net.news: (Victor Sack) writes: } }>Brett Mount > wrote: <snip> }>> I'm unsure of the reasoning behind it- that may be a question better }>> directed to Mr Andrews. } }Andrew, not Andrews. You have my apologies- that's what comes of not reading carefully enough! <snip> }Usually the proposer of a vote is interested in getting the vote passed. }These are the people most likely to "advertise" a way to vote YES only. }We haven't had any situation yet where somebody who is not the proponent }takes it upon themselves to promote failing a group vote. } }I want to move the voting system to the website as soon as I can get the }code written; there will be one button for YES and one button for NO, }so I expect the issue will disappear. Being the reactionary that I am, I wonder about people who have usenet but not Web access, but then I suspect the figures for them are probably in single digits worldwide (the last example I know of became web enabled a few weeks ago). I've no doubt you've already considered issues of voter verification, and the wisdom of web based structures for usenet- there's been a few interesting arguments there. The different promoting rules in aus.* should make the latter less of an issue anyway. -- Brett "I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Nick Andrew with some words for
aus.net.news: }Any proposal contentious enough to cause an organised "Vote No" }campaign deserves to fail. There's clearly something wrong with }the proposal, and a group won't go through until that problem is }recognised and addressed. So I don't see it as a risk. } }There could still be otherwise-good proposals failed by a no-voting }bloc if the group topic was particularly contentious. For example I }would expect a group aus.abortion.centres would fail a vote because }right-to-lifers would object to the possibility of pro-abortionists }discussing (rating, etc) abortion centres. But if the group were }to pass, then it would be a big flame fest anyway, so failing it }is no loss. How about aus.abortion.centres.moderated, though? I could see that being sufficiently contentious to attract an organised No vote without endangering the content of the group if it should pass. Then again, I deal with hypotheticals a lot. <G> -- Brett "I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leanne > wrote:
> > As far as I'm concerend, they can address my concerns any time, right > > now, for example. I don't think they lost any chances until the voting > > is over. At least this ought to be so, logically. > > you've already made your mind up. What a presumptuous assumption! You have said virtually the same thing in reply to my very first mention of the need of statistical evidence and that was my second posting on the subject (the first was about rec.food.cooking being a global newsgroup). All to avoid doing your job as a proponent. You have clearly demonstrated that you haven't even read the aus.* FAQ and that you have no idea of what rec.food.cooking actually represents. Yet, you took offence at once and are still sulking. > Why should we try to change someone who is > not willing to listen. Have you even read any of my posts? As I told you before, you are already up to your neck in it and it is time to stop digging. You are the worst enemy of your own proposal. Apparently, you think that aus.food is your inalienable right, that anyone making an argument, no matter which, against it is unreasonable or evil and is your personal enemy. Some presumptuous assumptions of my own, if you will... BTW, it is a very bad form for a proponent to change his/her monicker until the whole process is over. They may know all your personas on aus.net.news; I imagine that very few people on rfc, to which you are crossposting, have any idea that "Leanne" is the same person as "Ms Leebee". Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nick Andrew > wrote:
> If the voter wants to change their vote they can send me an email. Ah, that is good to know. For the future, perhaps it would be a good idea to include this information in the voting instructions? > I want to move the voting system to the website as soon as I can get the > code written; Only a few years ago, I would have called that a bad idea, as there were still some people with UUCP feeds and no Web access. Now this probably is no longer a problem. > there will be one button for YES and one button for NO, > so I expect the issue will disappear. Sounds good. I just hope that, if needed, server-side scripting will be used - and no JavaScript. Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote:
> My god man get a LIFE. Wah Wah nothing happened. It's a simple call for > votes for a new aus newsgroup. You don't like it? reply no! Simple > really. I think you've made your points many, many times. My, such an original post (especially the "LIFE" part, complete with capitalising)! You ought to acquire a WebTV... it'll suit you perfectly. In case you missed it - and of course you did - I was asking whether the aus.* FAQ is still relevant or should be pulled as no longer needed. Has a lot to do with all the future aus.* proposals. Flew right over your head, obviously. >I couldn't > have cared less personally speaking, but seeing your attitude I think I > will vote. Yes for me! It is unethical to vote "YES" for a group one couldn't care less about. What an unprincipled decision! Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> What a presumptuous assumption! says you, you dont even know who you are talking to. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Victor Sack" > wrote in message
. .. > > BTW, it is a very bad form for a proponent to change his/her monicker > until the whole process is over. They may know all your personas on > aus.net.news; I imagine that very few people on rfc, to which you are > crossposting, have any idea that "Leanne" is the same person as "Ms > Leebee". > Possibly as you proport, you should have analysed the information before making such a "presumptious assumption".. Hopefully, the fine people on rfc would not have made the same "presumptious assumption". |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ms Leebee > wrote:
> Leanne wrote: > >> What a presumptuous assumption! > > > > says you, you dont even know who you are talking to. > > I think there's only room in our little country for only one "Leanne" at a > time .... i'm sorry, but you'll have to leave  BIG OOPS! I'm most sorry and offer an apology to both Leannes! :-(( Sheepishly, Victor (And still, the similarity, not just in name but in style, was nothing if not striking... the rest of my post still stands... They both have my sympathy.) |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Call For Votes (CFV): aus.food | Wine | |||
| aus.food: some background and a call for support .... | General Cooking | |||
| Last Call for research Survey on Food and Health | General Cooking | |||
| Last Call for research Survey on Food and Health | Baking | |||
| Last Call for research Survey on Food and Health | Restaurants | |||
Linear Mode
