🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec22.194946.54964@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:

   But I still think that folks who didn't believe rms "logically"
   belonged with rmm* were more likely to miss reading this ballot
   than folks who did.

So do I.  And we can address that without imposing an arbitrary
restriction on rename ballots.  All that is needed is different
subject lines for the same ballot, or preferably in my opinion,
subsidiary announcements with good subject lines which point to the
single ballot.  Most times, the partisans do a fine job of
spotlighting a troublesome proposal.  A formal requirement that the
vote taker take some responsibility for announcing the vote clearly to
all affected parties seems like a simple safety net to avoid *.synth
like debacles in the future.

   I've been posting and voting here for about 2 years now.

   I think an extra ballot or two every couple of years is well worth
   the price of avoiding the kind of situation which we encountered
   with rms.

I sympathize.  I'm only suggesting an alternate which gives us the
subject line clarity which is your goal without making life more
difficult for the reorganizers and the voters.  I hope you are
soliciting feedback from the people who ran renames in the past which
your proposal would have split.

Besides.  Within another two years, the net as we know it will be
dead.  You hear it all the time.
-- 
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>

Raise Usenet quality.  Read news.announce.newgroups and vote.