comp.sys.3b1.*?

[Wm E Davidsen Jr]

In article <1990Dec4.032432.2296 at ccad.uiowa.edu> emcguire at ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) writes:

| There is obviously still controversy over whether or not to use .att in
| the name.  This might be a good candidate for using one of the proposed
| STV methods of new group creation.  Preferably one easier to understand
| than Stodolsky's.  ;-)

  At the risk of offending some people, I will again offer this voting
form, as modified by suggestions from a few people. Feedback by mail or
posting is encouraged. My thanks to the people who have helped me
improve this.

================================================================

Sample message:

Subject: CVF: Group for large pet owners (BIGPETS)
>From: votecount at somewhere.com

Instructions:

  On the two lines Starting with $$ put your vote at the end of the
line, after the colon. Your vote should be:

  1) X on the YES line to accept the group under any name
  2) X on the NO line to reject the group under any name
  3) a string of letters (like acf) on the YES or NO lines to
     vote for or against individual names.

  YES votes for individual groups are counted in the order given. You
*may* vote only for or against certain names, if you don't vote either
way it will be counted as abstain. 

Group charter:

  This group will discuss keeping of large animals as household pets,
such as horses and pigs. Housebreaking and vet issues will be discussed.

Proposed names:

  a. rec.pets.farm
  b. rec.pets.barnyard

Votes:

$$ YES for names in order of preference (or X for any name okay):
$$ NO for names (or X for no group):

  You may reply to this posting or mail votes to
votecount at somewhere.com. You may delete any lines which do not start
with $$, but if you delete any $$ line or change the subject line, your
vote will not be counted.

================================================================

  Note that this allows vote counting software at some site to count
votes for a number of proposals at once. The vote is identified by the
code in the Subject: line, in this case (BIGPETS).

  Counting: the names would be ranked by order of preference. Starting
with the most popular name the YES votes would be counted as all the
votes which preferred the name (at all), and all the votes which said X
for "any name." The NO votes would be counted as the number of votes
against that name, plus the number of votes again any name (against the
idea of the group). 

  If several names had equal preference they would be ranked by vote,
if equal by vote the initial order on the ballot would be used as the
tiebreaker.

  After ordering, if any name satisfied the current requirements for
total YES votes and ratio of YES to NO votes, then the first (most
popular) name would be selected, and the group created.

  This proposal has the following advantages:

    a. It allows resolution of both group creation and name issues on a
       single ballot.

    b. It can be counted by a program, only vote rejection need be done
       by hand, and that can be semi-automated.

    c. It allows a reasonable way to express votes against the group at
       all under any name, for the group under any name, and for or
       against individual names. It also allows voting for or against
       a single name, while abstaining on other names.

  Of course it can be used with a single name as a means of automating
votes.
-- 
bill davidsen	(davidsen at crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
    VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.