The call for votes (CFV) has been issued for the splinter group
Read the instructions in the CFV and follow them if you want your
ballot counted. Voting closes October 21 at 1 second to midnight UTC.
The CFV should appear in the following groups:
but I don't see it here on the wreck yet.
I've submitted my ballot...
Unless the CFV also calls for eliminating rec.woodworking, I'm not too
worried about it.
In my article list, the CFV for rec.woodworking.all-ages appeared just
before your post, so there must be a bit of lag if you hadn't seen it
In any case, I'm very amused by the idea that the proponents hope to
create a "family safe environment" in an unmoderated NG. "Unmoderated"
= "anyone can say whatever they wish".
Perhaps they just need to adopt my news reading methods for the wReck:
I "mark read" about 80%+ of the posts, because either they're OT by
subject line, or outside my areas of interest, or there have been more
than 10 replies, which means it's probably devolved into a "meaningless
brown cloud of poot", to quote Frank Zappa.
CFV's are often cross-posted to all the relevant groups. Many
servers filter out all posts posted to more than one or two groups
(in order to eliminate troll posts, which are usually crossposted
to AUK, the nose, the flonk, etc etc).
Anyone interested who doesn't see the CFV should probably look
for it on Google groups.
You don't have to eliminate a group to negatively change it. I'll be voting
no, mainly because the people proposing it have done _zero_ to explain
what they're up to, what their motivation really is, and so on.
Add "ineffective and unneeded" to my list of concerns, yes. No positive
effect, real potential of confusing people trying to get wooddorking
information, and an inevitable cross-posting "everything goes to both
groups" situation, proponents of unknown/dubious motivation.... I'm
not seeing _any_ upside to this.
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:04:09 -0600, Dave Balderstone
can you clarify the meaning of the different possible votes? it looks
like the possibilities are:
[ YES ] example.yes.vote
[ NO ] example.no.vote
[ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
[ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
'YES' you are in favor of the new group being created
'NO' you are opposed to the new group being created
'CANCEL' to void a previously cast vote. (you can change your mind during
the voting period, only your _last_ vote counts. 'Cancel' is
how you withdraw a vote, =without= casting a vote for the opposite
side of the proposition)
'ABSTAIN' no functional purpose. it pretty much says "I'm going on the record
as 'I don't care' about this group."
The appropriate "magic word" must be inserted in the space marked off with the
'[' and ']' characters, in front of the name of each newsgroup on which you
are casting a vote.
If you think the proposed group may have an adverse effects on rec.woodworking
a 'no' vote is in order.
If you thing the proposed group has merit, in and of itself, then a 'yes' vote
is in order.
If you don't have any real feelings either way, then the recommended action is
_do_not_vote_ on the matter.
firstname.lastname@example.org wrote in news:lmanl0dmkv8fb2o3pv7uoer5mkk1k3n7q8@
The usually accepted meanings are:
[YES] - I approve of this group and intend to read it
[NO] - I have some technical objection to the existance of the group
[ABSTAIN] - I have no objection to the group but also won't read it
[CANCEL] - I have previously voted and now wish to remove that vote
Note that "technical objection" can include such things as "I
beleive this group will adversely affect other groups" as well as
"I don't beleive this group will have a viable readership".
Note also that these meanings are slightly different from those
in Robert Bonomi's post. These are slightly more accurate, altho
those are close enough for practical purposes.
For some reason, I feel compelled to take (at least minor) issue with most of
the above. <grin>
Notably that a yes vote implies that you *do* intend to read the proposed group.
Over the years I have voted _for_ a number of groups that I had no intention
whatsoever of reading. Where there was a valid functional division being
drawn, and the new group was going to siphon off stuff that I had no interest
in. Creating that new group was going to get the 'irrelevancies' (to me) out
of the group that I _was_ reading -- a 'worthy' reason for creating it. :)
Since 'abstain' votes are, for all practical purposes, totally *ignored* by
the voting system, there is no functional difference between an 'abstain' vote
The 'cancel' description, above, is a bit misleading in that it would seem to
imply that if you wish to change your vote from 'yes' to 'no', or vice-versa,
that you need to 'cancel' the your prior vote, and then submit your new one.
email@example.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
wrote:>>The usually accepted meanings are:
That misses the point of having a vote, however. The reason the vote
is held is so that the newsgroup administrators can determine if
there's enough potential users to justify creating a group. If the
group doesn't have enough users (readers & posters) it will die,
causing extra work for those maintaining newsservers (and probably
also failing to draw off your "irrelevancies" :-)
Which is why one's generally expected to vote yes only if they'll
at least read, if not post, the new group.
Of course, anyone's free to vote any way for any reason :-)
Yeah - getting it in one line was tricky. I was hoping that using
"remove" and not "replace" would get the point across that you only
need to use cancel if you don't want to have any vote entered.
If you're using my TrollFilter, or Robert Bonomi's filters, you won't ever see
it on the Wreck because it's been crossposted to five groups. Our filters
remove such crossposts.
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.