🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec18.210827.52872@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:

   Can you clarify what you think the "needless complications" will
   be?  With automated software doing the actual vote tallying,
   why is it so terrible if instead of a six-vote ballot, circumstances
   required you to have two three-vote ballots?

Actually, I was thinking more of the complications introduced to the
voter.  A single vote article, containing a complete explanation of
the proposed changes and a single ballot, seems simpler to me than
multiple cross-referenced vote articles with multiple ballots, each of
which I should find and vote on if the proposed changes are relevant
to me.  Rename proposals do not need to be artificially separated into
multiple ballots to accomplish what you want.  Just use a different
subject line on the same vote article as appropriate.

   There's no point in putting something onto a ballot until you've
   first explained to the new users why they should read ballots.

   All of my proposals are based on the premise that readers
   have a limited time to read articles, and that by default
   they will ignore articles unless there is a compelling
   reason to read them.

My feedback was based on the same premise.  The problem is, how do you
get people to read the "guidelines for voters?"  Readers are far more
likely to be motivated to pay attention by a well written subject line
warning about the vote in their favorite newsgroup itself.
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>