"B Moody" wrote in
:

I have no idea what this message is about. I did not vote on
anything. It definitely needs some comment.


Hi there. There have been a ton of comments, some in rec.woodworking, but
mostly in the newsgroup news.groups about this issue. There was a proposal
to create a new woodworking group. The proposal went to a vote. It passed,
but there were accusations of voter fraud, so there will be a new vote
using an improved voting system. You can look out for the next voting
announcement in news.announce.newgroups if you miss it in rec.woodworking,
where it will also be posted.

See.. http://tinyurl.com/4qlc7

Message-ID:

Keep in mind that your reply did not make it to rec.woodworking because
follow-ups were set to news.groups, which is standard for Big Eight
newsgroup creation discussions.

--
Bill

(NAN Team) wrote in message ...
Due to evidence of serious vote fraud in the first vote on this proposal,
we will be holding a revote (following the procedure of point 28 of the
Guidelines). All previous votes have been discarded, and all voters will
need to vote again. A new call for votes (CFV) will be issued in a few
days.

Few days my foot. In what dictionary does "few" amount to 16+ ??
This was not handled in a professional manner. If you ran into
unforeseeable delays, a proper announcement would have taken all but
three minutes of your time.

Different from the initial voting procedure, this vote will be conducted
using the per-voter ballot method discussed on news.groups. This means
that, rather than including the ballot in the CFV, all voters will need to
mail the address in the CFV to obtain a ballot specific for them, fill it
out, and return it.

Our hope is that a revote and this voting method may help ameliorate the
problems of the original vote. It may not. If not, we will evaluate the
new result and decide what to do at that point.

I intend to vote again. My vote will be the same as on the first
ballot. I don't see how you expect the next result to be any
different. This new vote is simply a waste of everyone's time ...
your's included.

Eric Degeno
North Yorkshire, UK

In news.groups, Eric D writes:
(NAN Team) wrote:

Due to evidence of serious vote fraud in the first vote on this
proposal, we will be holding a revote (following the procedure of point
28 of the Guidelines). All previous votes have been discarded, and all
voters will need to vote again. A new call for votes (CFV) will be
issued in a few days.

Few days my foot. In what dictionary does "few" amount to 16+ ?? This
was not handled in a professional manner.

Oh, well, in that case, please do feel free to hire a different
professional to take care of this next time.

BTW, to where should I send my bill?

If you ran into unforeseeable delays, a proper announcement would have
taken all but three minutes of your time.

You're in the UK, which means that you may not be aware that last week is
a significant holiday in the United States.

Anyway, the main problem, in addition to the holiday, is that I keep
thinking that each day I'm going to have *real* news rather than "I have
no clear idea when I'm going to have real news" and so far have been
disappointed. However, we should know exactly what's going to happen
soon, and I'll make sure that *some* kind of announcement is posted on
Monday after the holiday weekend.

--
Russ Allbery ) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/

On 27 Nov 2004 07:43:57 -0800, (Eric D) wrote to
news.groups:

(NAN Team) wrote in message ...
Due to evidence of serious vote fraud in the first vote on this proposal,
we will be holding a revote (following the procedure of point 28 of the
Guidelines). All previous votes have been discarded, and all voters will
need to vote again. A new call for votes (CFV) will be issued in a few
days.

Few days my foot. In what dictionary does "few" amount to 16+ ??
This was not handled in a professional manner. If you ran into
unforeseeable delays, a proper announcement would have taken all but
three minutes of your time.

Perhaps it escaped your attention, but there is going to be a new
votingsystem put in place for this vote. It was described in the next
paragraph:

Different from the initial voting procedure, this vote will be conducted
using the per-voter ballot method discussed on news.groups. This means
that, rather than including the ballot in the CFV, all voters will need to
mail the address in the CFV to obtain a ballot specific for them, fill it
out, and return it.

Presumably, the Usenet Vote Volunteers are still putting this system in
place for the vote.


Our hope is that a revote and this voting method may help ameliorate the
problems of the original vote. It may not. If not, we will evaluate the
new result and decide what to do at that point.

I intend to vote again. My vote will be the same as on the first
ballot. I don't see how you expect the next result to be any
different. This new vote is simply a waste of everyone's time ...
your's included.

Are you also expecting the same amount of vote fraud to take place
during the re-vote?

If there was a substantial amount of vote fraud, as the evidence
indicates, then the new voting system should make it more difficult for
that to happen in the re-vote. (Note that I said "more difficult", not
"impossible".) The proposal will get to stand on its own merits rather
than being artifically boosted one way or the other.

Eric Degeno
North Yorkshire, UK

--
Rob Kelk
Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- wxfei -qbg- pbz
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
ott.* newsgroup charters: http://onag.pinetree.org

In news.groups, Rob Kelk writes:

Perhaps it escaped your attention, but there is going to be a new
votingsystem put in place for this vote. It was described in the next
paragraph:

Different from the initial voting procedure, this vote will be
conducted using the per-voter ballot method discussed on news.groups.
This means that, rather than including the ballot in the CFV, all
voters will need to mail the address in the CFV to obtain a ballot
specific for them, fill it out, and return it.

Presumably, the Usenet Vote Volunteers are still putting this system in
place for the vote.

This is a very reasonable assumption, but actually, no, the delay isn't
due to the votetaker at all, other than skipping forward from date to date
at which he would be ready to start the vote. The UVV has been excellent
here.

We're talking to the proponents about some things, and various things have
conspired to make that very slow, and I'm sorry for that. (Todd and I
have both been extremely busy, there's a significant holiday in the US,
etc.)

--
Russ Allbery ) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/

In article , Russ Allbery
wrote:

Anyway, the main problem, in addition to the holiday, is that I keep
thinking that each day I'm going to have *real* news rather than "I have
no clear idea when I'm going to have real news" and so far have been
disappointed. However, we should know exactly what's going to happen
soon, and I'll make sure that *some* kind of announcement is posted on
Monday after the holiday weekend.

Don't sweat it, Russ. Many of us interested in the revote are well
aware that there's a pile of work being done aand are quite prepared to
wait.

Russ Allbery wrote:
[ In response to some complaints: ]
Oh, well, in that case, please do feel free to hire a different
professional to take care of this next time.

Volunteering is generally a commendable action. Sometimes it isn't.

BTW, to where should I send my bill?

Try Supernews, Newsguy, or Google, among other possibilities. You may even
want to consider soliciting for monetary compensation from Usenet netizens,
in exchange for some accountability. I'm willing to contribute some money
to that end. If you don't wish to accept some form of compensation in
exchange for some accountability then perhaps it is time to gracefully hand
off NAN responsibilities to some individuals or organization that is
willing to accept such an exchange?

In news.groups, Jim Logajan writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:

BTW, to where should I send my bill?

Try Supernews, Newsguy, or Google, among other possibilities. You may
even want to consider soliciting for monetary compensation from Usenet
netizens, in exchange for some accountability. I'm willing to contribute
some money to that end. If you don't wish to accept some form of
compensation in exchange for some accountability then perhaps it is time
to gracefully hand off NAN responsibilities to some individuals or
organization that is willing to accept such an exchange?

I don't want any compensation; I already have a job that pays me, frankly,
rather too much money given the economic inequalities in the world. I
think most people can guess the point of the sarcasm, and it wasn't to get
people to give me money. I don't provide, or want to provide, a
professional newsgroup creation service.

If someone else wants to step forward and actually do the work and seems
to be doing a better job, I'll very happily stop doing this with my spare
time and start doing something else. And even if I don't stop, it's not
like anyone has to listen to me. I'll point out that no one else has ever
even attempted this in any sort of organized fashion, thus indicating that
people love to complain and don't actually want to or have the resources
to do anything productive.

And yes, I actually do plan to try to make that easier as soon as I can
find some free time, by putting much of the software used to do such
things up on the web for people to grab if they want to try it out,
although frankly none of it is particularly complicated.

--
Russ Allbery ) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/

In news.groups, Ken Arromdee writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:

Oh, well, in that case, please do feel free to hire a different
professional to take care of this next time.

BTW, to where should I send my bill?

Russ, that amounts to the old "because we're volunteers, you shouldn't
criticize us" argument.

No, it amounts to the "because we're volunteers, you shouldn't criticize
us for not being professional" argument. Please do try to keep up.

It's *not*, as a universal rule, wrong to criticize a volunteer for not
doing a job properly. A volunteer is doing free work, but he's also
filling a niche.

Apparently some people think those niches should only be filled by
professionals.

--
Russ Allbery ) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/