From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth,news.groups,rec.music.makers
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:47:23 GMT
Followup-To: rec.music.synth
Organization: GSP Whitewater Slalom Racing Team

In article <1992Nov4.184420.6918@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>>Is there some problem with changing the name of the group at the point
>>where it's gatewayed?  It seems to me like a trivial change; if it's
>>not, why not?
>
>Apparently there is [a problem with changing the name of the group at
>the point where it's gatewayed] . The maintainers of certain lists
>have spoken out about this...which prompted me to take this stance.

Hmmm.  I wonder why none of them said anything to me during the discussion
period, during the vote, or even now.  What lists?  Who are these
maintainers?  Why didn't they say something during the discussion period?

>I saw some of that effort and even participated. Remember that
>I was the one that asked you for a "rec.music.makers.keyboard" for
>keyboard players to discuss techniques and stuff? WHERE did the
>"new" synth group come from? 

See below for the chronology, which will hopefully answer your question.

>There is a question of some no votes not getting counted. Would you 
>officially recount the votes, including those that did not get counted
>if that is appropriate?

I'm not sure I understand what you want.  I counted *all* the votes
which showed up with a correctly-marked ballot (using a shell and awk
script).  Attempted votes which showed up with an incorrectly-marked
ballot were returned to the sender with a note saying

	"Unintelligible vote received.  Please re-read the voting instructions
	in their entirety and resubmit your vote."

As best as I undertand the guidelines for conducting a vote, votes that
are incorrectly-marked should not be counted.

>1) that I never saw any discussion in news.groups or r.m.s about 
>changing r.m.s. It just "appeared" on the ballot. Now I voted "NO" 
>to it...but I also posted a question about the item on the ballot. 
>It was not answered. 

I did not see your posted question; did you try mailing it?

Anyway, to answer your question above (about where the name came
from) and to try to put things in perspective, here's
the chronology of events, as best as I can reconstruct it
from saved mail and news articles:

8/19	First call for discussion; proposed groups are:
	rec.music.guitar, rec.music.bass, rec.music.drums,
	rec.music.tablature, and rec.music.tablature.d.

8/19-8/28	22 comments via news, mail or both received.

8/28	Second call for discussion; proposed groups are:
	rec.music.makers.guitar, rec.music.makers.bass,
	rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature, rec.music.makers.percussion;
	proposed renaming is rec.music.synth->rec.music.makers.keyboards.

8/28-9/9	36 comments via news, mail, or both received.

9/9	Third call for discussion: proposed groups are:
	rec.music.makers.guitar, rec.music.makers.bass,
	rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature, rec.music.makers.percussion;
	proposed renaming is rec.music.synth->rec.music.makers.synth.

9/9-9/28	11 comments via news, mail or both receieved.

9/28	First call-for-votes issued.

10/?? (I can't find the exact date offhand, I'll check the backup tapes)
	Second call-for-votes issued.

10/13	Third call-for-votes issued.

11/1	Results posted.

>2) I also note that your follow up line is to "rec.music.makers". Why didn't
>you follow that to "rec.music.synth" (the affected group)?

I used the followup line that was on the article that I followed-up
to, only changing "rec.music.synt" to "rec.music.synth" to correct
a typo.  I've no idea why the article showed up here with that typo
in it, and frankly I'm too tired to worry about it.

---Rsk
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth