From: tsang@cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang)
Subject: Re: Call for "Straw" Votes: rec.games.frp.campaign
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 21:09:05 GMT

In article <> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca () writes:
>                            "Straw" Call For Votes
>                         on the proposed NEW newsgroup
>                            rec.games.frp.campaign

               CALL FOR RETRACTION OF STRAW POLL
                 on the proposed NEW newsgroup
                    rec.games.frp.campaign

>    This is not an official call for vote for the forming of a new newsgroup.
>This is merely a "poll" to determine whether there is enough interest in
>rec.games.frp.campaign to warrent a full Call for Votes(CFV).

Straw polls should be conducted to determine the general feeling and
consensus of the group of potential voters.  If "no" votes are ignored,
a grave disservice is done.

Surely the Canadians have "straw polls" before elections?  This should
work about the same: it's a gauge of whether or not an issue is worth
pursuing.

If there are (n) times as many "no" votes as there are "yes" votes, n
somewhat large, the idea of the new group should be shelved for a while
(suggested period: at least 6 months) or dropped entirely.

Anyone who voted in the "Straw Poll" should send another message to the
votetaker (cbnorman@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu), requesting that he
retract his CFSV, and post a different one (with a slightly different
header, to discriminate between the two).

>    Then respond to this note, in e-mail, with the only text being "I support 
>the further discussion of .campaign."

The straw vote should have a few questions in it, such as:


   1.  Would you vote for rec.games.frp.campaign as the proposal stands?

   2.  Would you ever vote for a group dedicated to general campaigning
       issues, if it were moderated?

   3.  Would you ever vote for a group dedicated to general campaigning
       issues, if it were UNmoderated?

   4.  Would you consider voting for a new group called
       "rec.games.frp.dnd.campaign"?

Further, to partially educated the voters, it would be NICE to have
a neutral third party conduct the voting, AND for interested parties
on both sides of the issue to present arguments for and against each
question.

Voting instructions should be written clearly and concisely, and the
easiest way to do send in ballots in the above case would be for each
person to send the single line:

rgfc: XXXX

where each X would be "Y" (yes), "N" (no), "A" (abstain), or "U" (undecided).
The email address of the vote collector should be clearly marked, and if
he or she has any influence with system administration, the voting should
be done to someplace other than a personal mailbox.

ALL THE RESULTS should be posted to the Usenet, without comment as to
what the results of a certain set of votes meant.  THEN, if it's fairly
clear what needs to be done (eg, if there's a majority vote against
all four questions), do it.

Just some common sense...


-- 
Donald Tsang                    "Ho!  Haha!  Guard!  Turn!  Parry!  Dodge!
tsang@june.cs.washington.edu     Spin!  Ha!  Thrust!"
..!uw-beaver!june!tsang                       -- Robin Hood Daffy