🚀 go-pugleaf

On 7 Feb 1997 19:37:15 GMT, in news:<01bc152d$afd4c600$1b148cc3@ivo>,
Ivo De Broeck <stim@tornado.be> wrote in be.comp.internet,be.forsale,be.misc:
>[CFV_4]: RESULTAAT oprichting be.markt / afschaffing be.forsale 
...
>De oprichting van be.markt en de afschaffing van be.forsale
>is dus GOEDGEKEURD.
>
>Iedereen kan binnen de 5 dagen zijn eventuele opmerkingen uiten
>door dit te melden in be.misc als antwoord op dit bericht.
>(geen email)

I repeat my multiple objections to the procedure and methods used
by the votetaker

1) 

The e-mail addresses of the vote takers are not mentioned in the
final voter list, making individual voting verification impossible.

Moreover, the following voters do not even have a full name mentioned:

11. Rudi                                14
20. Paul                                24
27. VHelleputte                 31
31. led                         35
50. sydb@bnbb.be                        55
65. Bertie                              71

Such anonymous votes are not acceptable.

2)
My vote of january 24th is still missing 

And yes, I have checked that
- the vote was sent in the voting period
- the subject line was exactly "be.markt"
- the From: field unambiguously contained my name and e-mail address
- the To: field was stim@tornado.be, the vote takers' e-mail address
- the body of the mail was containing one of the proposed single words,
  exactly spelled as proposed, and nothing else
- the mail transfer agent logs show that the e-mail was sent, and received 
  by the end system of the vote taker:


Jan 24 10:38:02 vivaldi sendmail[8018]: KAA08018: from=<marc@belnet.be>, size=416, class=0, pri=30416, 
     nrcpts=1, msgid=<Pine.LNX.3.95.970124103128.26494B-100000@ain.belnet.be>, proto=ESMTP, 
     relay=root@ain.belnet.be [193.190.198.18]
Jan 24 10:38:05 vivaldi sendmail[8020]: KAA08018: to=<stim@tornado.be>, ctladdr=<marc@belnet.be> (112/10), 
     delay=00:00:03, xdelay=00:00:03, mailer=esmtp, relay=mail2.tornado.be. [194.149.80.18], stat=Sent 
     (KAA28769 Message accepted for delivery)

Informed in due time, the votetaker failed to provide any explanation for this.

3)

The elimination of be.forsale follows no existing procedure.
Using the rules for a newsgroup creation is an abuse.

As, in the CFV, the creation a the proposed new "be.markt" group has always
been tightly bound to the suppression of the "be.forsale" group, the votes in 
favor cannot be interpreted as solely in favor of the creation of a new group
named "be.markt", should "be.forsale" be not suppressed.

4)

The RFD and the CFV have only been brought in Dutch, while it was proposed
that a multi-lingual group with a charter in English, be.forsale, was
suppressed.  This made non-Dutch speaking readers unable or objectively
refrained from participate to the RFD and CFV, and does not correspond 
to the fairness necessary for a "democratic" vote.




I ask consequently the be.* hierarchy maintainer not to take the result of this 
vote into account and declare the voting void.

-- 
Marc Roger