🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8310@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan04.172717.43474@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> >In article <1hi13aINNitm@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
|> 
|> Rob, I admire your persistence, but John is much like Dave Hayes: the more you
|> argue, the more he argues, and you'll never, ever, ever win.
|> 

Well perhaps I shouldn't try to persuade John specifically.

Given that Usenet is often described as an anarchy,
it's not clear to me exactly what procedure I should
follow to change the current guidelines, or whom
exactly I ought to be trying to persuade.  

My postings are directed not at anyone in particular but at n.a.p at large ---
all those who claim to be interested in policy.  I moved
this discussion here from news.groups after learning that
(a) the r.m.s. vote which led to all this was a *fait accompli*
    and valid under the current rules
(b) constructive suggestions for changing these rules (but
    not for applying them retroactively) would be welcome
(c) on the news.admin.policy newsgroup

By the way, I am glad to see that you use the same quotation
prefix which I use (and which John Stanley objects to).  I'm not the only one.

|> >|> >|> Like I said, "all at once". 
|> >|> >They can be done all at once with two ballots.
|> >|> Which new definition of the phrase "at once" are you using?
|> >This means that the ballots go out on the same day
|> >and the voting periods are identical.
|> >Exactly the same result as if several votes go out
|> >on a single ballot.
|> 
|> I still don't buy this. You're completely ignoring that the multiple ballots
|> might well be (I think they are) more confusing for the voter, as well as more
|> work for the vote taker (his work goes up as the number of total ballots
|> received, not the number of votes). It's _NOT_ the same result.

What I wrote above was a narrower argument --- namely that
multiple votes can be passed "all at once" (that is, at the same time)
even though they are on multiple ballots.  I wasn't
addressing your objections.

I don't think multiple ballots are any more difficult for the
vote taker.  Many vote takers count ballots by automated software,
and therefore in that case the vote taker's work is O(1).

In my experience as a voter, smaller ballots are simpler.
Often I could just ignore entire ballots rather than
reading all of a long ballot and then abstaining on
the unnecessary questions.

While occasionally it could work the other way, I think
the benefits of (1) guaranteeing subject lines which are
both clear and short and (2) avoiding situations like
the rms vote outweigh any deficiencies. 

Do we have logs of past votes?  Can we determine what
fraction of the last, say, 100 renaming ballots would
have had to be split under my proposed rules?


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598