|
Grex > Coop9 > #54: Discussion of the proposal we are voting on | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 16 new of 69 responses total. |
adbarr
|
|
response 54 of 69:
| 
Feb 21 00:22 UTC 1997 |
Probably a derivative of Eh? Nanny! Moose? Meaning "Another helping of this
large ruminant?" Or so I would guess.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 55 of 69:
|
Feb 21 03:52 UTC 1997 |
I think it really *was* robh. He abused his root access to put together a
little atrun script that he kept in /usr/local/man. It ran right on schedule
piping in his dictations to picospan thus faking the response while he made
sure to be somewhere far away with witnesses. Just admit it Rob.
Hehehehahaha. It's fun making groundless accusations. ;)
|
davel
|
|
response 56 of 69:
|
Feb 21 11:40 UTC 1997 |
Take them to melvin!
|
remmers
|
|
response 57 of 69:
|
Feb 22 05:13 UTC 1997 |
It's just past midnight; the polls have closed. Since this is
the current discussion item for the proposal, I'll announce the
result here:
Yes 16
No 24
The proposal did not pass.
The above were the member vote totals. Interestingly, the
(non-counting) non-member vote went the opposite way:
Yes 21
No 18
|
aliz
|
|
response 58 of 69:
|
Feb 22 11:50 UTC 1997 |
I think that is it nice that someone helped Jenna out in this way.
Though, I wasnt the one to do it, I have "helped" another young person
become a paying member of grex
>:)
|
robh
|
|
response 59 of 69:
|
Feb 22 12:21 UTC 1997 |
(Yeah, but you have to, it's in the rules of parenting or whatever
they're called. >8)
Well, I'm definitely disappointed in the result. I was really hoping
that this one would pass. Now I guess it's an all-or-nothing game.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 60 of 69:
|
Feb 22 12:30 UTC 1997 |
If the next one passes (Which I really hope doesnt) then I will enter a
proposal to *NOT* allow unregistered reading in *ANY* conference ;)
|
dpc
|
|
response 61 of 69:
|
Feb 22 17:00 UTC 1997 |
I'm surprised; I figured Valerie's proposal would pass overwhelmingly.
Shows you how much I know about how to diagnose public opinion...8-)
|
richard
|
|
response 62 of 69:
|
Feb 22 18:10 UTC 1997 |
This vote shows aclear rejection by the members of the idea of
having conferences selectively deciding their own access policies. The
only question now is whether to have unregistered reading in all the confs
or none of them. This vote failed because this was a very polarizing
issue and there wasnt a lot of middle ground. Those opposed to
unregistered reading as a policy and those who support the idea but oppose
a compromise combined to defeat this proposal.
Clearly this coalition would defeat any other version of this proposal
because neither side is about to change their opinions. Mary's proposal
to have unregisteredreading in all confs will splinter the coalition
Those who support the idea but reject a compromise will vote "yes" next
time along with the majority of those who voted "yes" this time. So it
should pass.
Ryan, I dont know the point of #61...why would you propose to
repeal something that passed the previous week? That is literally having
a second vote on the same issue. If the members vote to have unregistered
reading in all confs, why would they then the following week vote foryour
proposalto have no unregisterd reading?
Percentage wise, this wasnt close btw...60% opposed, 40% for. If half of the
"no"'s vote "yes" on mary's proposal, and half who voted yes do so again, that
is enough to pass mary's proposal. I dont think it willbe that close, because
I think the vast majority of those who voted "yes" this time support the idea
strongly enough to suppport it even if its not couched in a compromise.
|
jenna
|
|
response 63 of 69:
|
Feb 22 19:12 UTC 1997 |
60 40 IS close with a small number of people, Richard.
The real question is why people voted no. Because they don't want conferences
open at all, or because they don't want selectivity.
I hope it's the first.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 64 of 69:
|
Feb 22 22:33 UTC 1997 |
What's more, Richard, this was an even split of Total Grexian opinion, and
apparently non-members want this more than members do! I also notice that an
equal amount of non-members voted as members, meaning that it must be pretty
important to them, seeing as they know it means nothing in the hands of
policy.
So, we have evidence that peple who want this are roughly even in number with
those who don't. Do you REALLY want to piss that many people off by turning
Backtalk on? THINK ABOUT IT. HARD.
|
nestene
|
|
response 65 of 69:
|
Feb 23 02:24 UTC 1997 |
I am in favor of anonymous reading, yet I voted against this proposal.
I don't remember the exact wording that set me against it, but I seem
to recall feeling it was too unaesthetic a hack of the way we usually
do things for me to endorse it. If the next proposal is that all and
sundry can read any and every, I will vote for it in a heartbeat.
|
srw
|
|
response 66 of 69:
|
Feb 23 18:36 UTC 1997 |
The people who voted against this proposal are of two different types.
Some voted against it because they didn't want the complexity that it
introduced. These people are basically idealistic, and voted against it
because of their ideals. They will vote for Mary's.
The other group are the ones who oppose *any* unregistered reading. THey will
continue to oppose Mary's as well.
We don't really know the mix, but the next vote will tell. That's why we vote.
I will continue to support unregistered reading. I am just disappointed
that we couldn't have have compromised on it. I will vote for Mary's proposal.
|
valerie
|
|
response 67 of 69:
|
Feb 24 01:42 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 68 of 69:
|
Feb 25 10:45 UTC 1997 |
i'm glad jenna has a. nonny mouse sponsorship.
|
jenna
|
|
response 69 of 69:
|
Mar 2 19:52 UTC 1997 |
thanks tsty... nd nonny, too.
|