Due to evidence of serious vote fraud in the first vote on this proposal,
we will be holding a revote (following the procedure of point 28 of the
Guidelines). All previous votes have been discarded, and all voters will
need to vote again. A new call for votes (CFV) will be issued in a few
days.
Different from the initial voting procedure, this vote will be conducted
using the per-voter ballot method discussed on news.groups. This means
that, rather than including the ballot in the CFV, all voters will need to
mail the address in the CFV to obtain a ballot specific for them, fill it
out, and return it.
Our hope is that a revote and this voting method may help ameliorate the
problems of the original vote. It may not. If not, we will evaluate the
new result and decide what to do at that point.
We do not suspect the proponents of any sort of wrong-doing in this
matter, and are very grateful for their understanding and patience.
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected])
news.announce.newgroups moderation team member
In article <[email protected]>, Russ Allbery
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Anyway, the main problem, in addition to the holiday, is that I keep
> thinking that each day I'm going to have *real* news rather than "I have
> no clear idea when I'm going to have real news" and so far have been
> disappointed. However, we should know exactly what's going to happen
> soon, and I'll make sure that *some* kind of announcement is posted on
> Monday after the holiday weekend.
Don't sweat it, Russ. Many of us interested in the revote are well
aware that there's a pile of work being done aand are quite prepared to
wait.
In news.groups, Ken Arromdee <[email protected]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Oh, well, in that case, please do feel free to hire a different
>> professional to take care of this next time.
>> BTW, to where should I send my bill?
> Russ, that amounts to the old "because we're volunteers, you shouldn't
> criticize us" argument.
No, it amounts to the "because we're volunteers, you shouldn't criticize
us for not being professional" argument. Please do try to keep up.
> It's *not*, as a universal rule, wrong to criticize a volunteer for not
> doing a job properly. A volunteer is doing free work, but he's also
> filling a niche.
Apparently some people think those niches should only be filled by
professionals.
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
In news.groups, Jim Logajan <[email protected]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
>> BTW, to where should I send my bill?
> Try Supernews, Newsguy, or Google, among other possibilities. You may
> even want to consider soliciting for monetary compensation from Usenet
> netizens, in exchange for some accountability. I'm willing to contribute
> some money to that end. If you don't wish to accept some form of
> compensation in exchange for some accountability then perhaps it is time
> to gracefully hand off NAN responsibilities to some individuals or
> organization that is willing to accept such an exchange?
I don't want any compensation; I already have a job that pays me, frankly,
rather too much money given the economic inequalities in the world. I
think most people can guess the point of the sarcasm, and it wasn't to get
people to give me money. I don't provide, or want to provide, a
professional newsgroup creation service.
If someone else wants to step forward and actually do the work and seems
to be doing a better job, I'll very happily stop doing this with my spare
time and start doing something else. And even if I don't stop, it's not
like anyone has to listen to me. I'll point out that no one else has ever
even attempted this in any sort of organized fashion, thus indicating that
people love to complain and don't actually want to or have the resources
to do anything productive.
And yes, I actually do plan to try to make that easier as soon as I can
find some free time, by putting much of the software used to do such
things up on the web for people to grab if they want to try it out,
although frankly none of it is particularly complicated. :)
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
In news.groups, Rob Kelk <[email protected]> writes:
> Perhaps it escaped your attention, but there is going to be a new
> votingsystem put in place for this vote. It was described in the next
> paragraph:
>>> Different from the initial voting procedure, this vote will be
>>> conducted using the per-voter ballot method discussed on news.groups.
>>> This means that, rather than including the ballot in the CFV, all
>>> voters will need to mail the address in the CFV to obtain a ballot
>>> specific for them, fill it out, and return it.
> Presumably, the Usenet Vote Volunteers are still putting this system in
> place for the vote.
This is a very reasonable assumption, but actually, no, the delay isn't
due to the votetaker at all, other than skipping forward from date to date
at which he would be ready to start the vote. The UVV has been excellent
here.
We're talking to the proponents about some things, and various things have
conspired to make that very slow, and I'm sorry for that. (Todd and I
have both been extremely busy, there's a significant holiday in the US,
etc.)
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
In news.groups, Eric D <[email protected]> writes:
> [email protected] (NAN Team) wrote:
>> Due to evidence of serious vote fraud in the first vote on this
>> proposal, we will be holding a revote (following the procedure of point
>> 28 of the Guidelines). All previous votes have been discarded, and all
>> voters will need to vote again. A new call for votes (CFV) will be
>> issued in a few days.
> Few days my foot. In what dictionary does "few" amount to 16+ ?? This
> was not handled in a professional manner.
Oh, well, in that case, please do feel free to hire a different
professional to take care of this next time.
BTW, to where should I send my bill?
> If you ran into unforeseeable delays, a proper announcement would have
> taken all but three minutes of your time.
You're in the UK, which means that you may not be aware that last week is
a significant holiday in the United States.
Anyway, the main problem, in addition to the holiday, is that I keep
thinking that each day I'm going to have *real* news rather than "I have
no clear idea when I'm going to have real news" and so far have been
disappointed. However, we should know exactly what's going to happen
soon, and I'll make sure that *some* kind of announcement is posted on
Monday after the holiday weekend.
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
On 27 Nov 2004 07:43:57 -0800, [email protected] (Eric D) wrote to
news.groups:
>[email protected] (NAN Team) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> Due to evidence of serious vote fraud in the first vote on this proposal,
>> we will be holding a revote (following the procedure of point 28 of the
>> Guidelines). All previous votes have been discarded, and all voters will
>> need to vote again. A new call for votes (CFV) will be issued in a few
>> days.
>
>Few days my foot. In what dictionary does "few" amount to 16+ ??
>This was not handled in a professional manner. If you ran into
>unforeseeable delays, a proper announcement would have taken all but
>three minutes of your time.
Perhaps it escaped your attention, but there is going to be a new
votingsystem put in place for this vote. It was described in the next
paragraph:
>> Different from the initial voting procedure, this vote will be conducted
>> using the per-voter ballot method discussed on news.groups. This means
>> that, rather than including the ballot in the CFV, all voters will need to
>> mail the address in the CFV to obtain a ballot specific for them, fill it
>> out, and return it.
Presumably, the Usenet Vote Volunteers are still putting this system in
place for the vote.
>> Our hope is that a revote and this voting method may help ameliorate the
>> problems of the original vote. It may not. If not, we will evaluate the
>> new result and decide what to do at that point.
>
>I intend to vote again. My vote will be the same as on the first
>ballot. I don't see how you expect the next result to be any
>different. This new vote is simply a waste of everyone's time ...
>your's included.
Are you also expecting the same amount of vote fraud to take place
during the re-vote?
If there was a substantial amount of vote fraud, as the evidence
indicates, then the new voting system should make it more difficult for
that to happen in the re-vote. (Note that I said "more difficult", not
"impossible".) The proposal will get to stand on its own merits rather
than being artifically boosted one way or the other.
>Eric Degeno
>North Yorkshire, UK
--
Rob Kelk
Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- wxfei -qbg- pbz
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
ott.* newsgroup charters: <http://onag.pinetree.org>
"B Moody" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I have no idea what this message is about. I did not vote on
> anything. It definitely needs some comment.
>
Hi there. There have been a ton of comments, some in rec.woodworking, but
mostly in the newsgroup news.groups about this issue. There was a proposal
to create a new woodworking group. The proposal went to a vote. It passed,
but there were accusations of voter fraud, so there will be a new vote
using an improved voting system. You can look out for the next voting
announcement in news.announce.newgroups if you miss it in rec.woodworking,
where it will also be posted.
See.. http://tinyurl.com/4qlc7
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Keep in mind that your reply did not make it to rec.woodworking because
follow-ups were set to news.groups, which is standard for Big Eight
newsgroup creation discussions.
--
Bill
Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
[ In response to some complaints: ]
> Oh, well, in that case, please do feel free to hire a different
> professional to take care of this next time.
Volunteering is generally a commendable action. Sometimes it isn't.
> BTW, to where should I send my bill?
Try Supernews, Newsguy, or Google, among other possibilities. You may even
want to consider soliciting for monetary compensation from Usenet netizens,
in exchange for some accountability. I'm willing to contribute some money
to that end. If you don't wish to accept some form of compensation in
exchange for some accountability then perhaps it is time to gracefully hand
off NAN responsibilities to some individuals or organization that is
willing to accept such an exchange?
Gary L. Burnore <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 01:39:43 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
> (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>>It's *not*, as a universal rule, wrong to criticize a volunteer for
>>not doing a job properly. A volunteer is doing free work, but he's
>>also filling a niche. His presence there may prevent other people
>>from filling that niche, and it's legitimate to criticize the
>>volunteer for misusing a niche that he is monopolizing.
>
> So you're volunteering to replace him? Good for you!
According to Ken's resume, he is more than qualified.
In article <[email protected]>,
Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Few days my foot. In what dictionary does "few" amount to 16+ ?? This
>> was not handled in a professional manner.
>
>Oh, well, in that case, please do feel free to hire a different
>professional to take care of this next time.
>
>BTW, to where should I send my bill?
Russ, that amounts to the old "because we're volunteers, you shouldn't
criticize us" argument. I would agree that here the criticism is unjustified,
but suggesting that that's so as a special case of "all criticisms are
unjustified" is like using a nuclear weapon to swat a fly (or insert your own
metaphor).
It's *not*, as a universal rule, wrong to criticize a volunteer for not doing
a job properly. A volunteer is doing free work, but he's also filling a
niche. His presence there may prevent other people from filling that niche,
and it's legitimate to criticize the volunteer for misusing a niche that he
is monopolizing.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright
brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." --Carl Sagan
In article <[email protected]>,
Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
>And even if I don't stop, it's not
>like anyone has to listen to me.
How long has it been since I first pointed out that software has default
settings hardcoded to accept control messages from Tale and his successors
(such as you)? 10-15 years?
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright
brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." --Carl Sagan
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 01:39:43 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Few days my foot. In what dictionary does "few" amount to 16+ ?? This
>>> was not handled in a professional manner.
>>
>>Oh, well, in that case, please do feel free to hire a different
>>professional to take care of this next time.
>>
>>BTW, to where should I send my bill?
>
>Russ, that amounts to the old "because we're volunteers, you shouldn't
>criticize us" argument. I would agree that here the criticism is unjustified,
>but suggesting that that's so as a special case of "all criticisms are
>unjustified" is like using a nuclear weapon to swat a fly (or insert your own
>metaphor).
>
>It's *not*, as a universal rule, wrong to criticize a volunteer for not doing
>a job properly. A volunteer is doing free work, but he's also filling a
>niche. His presence there may prevent other people from filling that niche,
>and it's legitimate to criticize the volunteer for misusing a niche that he
>is monopolizing.
So you're volunteering to replace him? Good for you!
--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================
In article <[email protected]>,
Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Oh, well, in that case, please do feel free to hire a different
>>> professional to take care of this next time.
>>> BTW, to where should I send my bill?
>> Russ, that amounts to the old "because we're volunteers, you shouldn't
>> criticize us" argument.
>No, it amounts to the "because we're volunteers, you shouldn't criticize
>us for not being professional" argument. Please do try to keep up.
I have a hard time understanding what that means. Surely almost any crticism
of a volunteer can be summarized as "that's unprofessional".
For instance, I think that Tale should not have delayed the rec.arts.anime
renaming proposal for almost a year before rejecting it. Would that be
considered a bad criticism because I'm just saying that Tale was being
unprofessional?
>> It's *not*, as a universal rule, wrong to criticize a volunteer for not
>> doing a job properly. A volunteer is doing free work, but he's also
>> filling a niche.
>Apparently some people think those niches should only be filled by
>professionals.
I think they think they should be filled by people who *act* professional.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright
brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." --Carl Sagan
[email protected] (NAN Team) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Due to evidence of serious vote fraud in the first vote on this proposal,
> we will be holding a revote (following the procedure of point 28 of the
> Guidelines). All previous votes have been discarded, and all voters will
> need to vote again. A new call for votes (CFV) will be issued in a few
> days.
Few days my foot. In what dictionary does "few" amount to 16+ ??
This was not handled in a professional manner. If you ran into
unforeseeable delays, a proper announcement would have taken all but
three minutes of your time.
> Different from the initial voting procedure, this vote will be conducted
> using the per-voter ballot method discussed on news.groups. This means
> that, rather than including the ballot in the CFV, all voters will need to
> mail the address in the CFV to obtain a ballot specific for them, fill it
> out, and return it.
>
> Our hope is that a revote and this voting method may help ameliorate the
> problems of the original vote. It may not. If not, we will evaluate the
> new result and decide what to do at that point.
I intend to vote again. My vote will be the same as on the first
ballot. I don't see how you expect the next result to be any
different. This new vote is simply a waste of everyone's time ...
your's included.
Eric Degeno
North Yorkshire, UK