🚀 go-pugleaf

I've got a whole lot of problems with this message.

In article <1992Nov20.171751.25602@sparky.imd.sterling.com> votes@sparky.sterling.com writes:
>There has been an on going discussion as to whether SHAREWARE is 
>acceptable for posting in the group comp.sources.misc.  This has 
>been a topic that flares up  everytime that a piece of SHAREWARE 
>is posted to the group. [...]

To aid us in our decision, could you inform those who do not read the "sources"
group what the charter of that group says about appropriate posts?  (I real-
ize that a resourceful man like myself should be able to find the charter on
his own, but perhaps there are others who are less resourceful out there.)

>I am running a vote to  once and  for  all decide whether of not 
>SHAREWARE  should be  posted to  comp.sources.misc.  If you feel 
>that  SHAREWARE is (un)acceptable  then  let me know via a vote. 

This is fine, but calling this is CFV is *not* OK!  For one thing, I haven't
seen *any* discussion of this on news.groups, let alone a formal RFD.

>VOTING PROCEDURE:
[deletion]
>The vote will continue until Midnight, December 5, 1992. At that 
>time I will tally and abide by the results of the vote. A simple 
>majority wins.

If a simple majority wins then this is by no means a formal CFV and should
not be called one.

So, in summary:

(1)  Post the charter

(2)  Ask for discussion, and then hold a formal RFD

(3)  If there is interest, post a CFV which follows the guidelines.

*******

A thought occurs to me.  Perhaps all these guidelines are merely ways for 
we "elitist" users to hide behind a bureaucracy?  (Gag!)  Maybe what the
UseNet needs is *more* anarchy, not less?  In the case of this "vote", I
think it is important that a quick decision be reached, more important than
that the decision be an "official" one.

-- 
Joshua E. Randall                       randall-joshua@yale.edu