[SGVLUG] Web Archive Voting Results.

[Alex Roston]

Somehow I didn't notice the vote.

I say public.

Alex


John Riehl wrote:

> Michael Proctor-Smith wrote:
>
>> On 9/19/05, Hershel Remer <unixrabbi at rabbs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, now re-run the election but with a reverse assumption  ....  
>>> this time
>>> state "vote if you don't have a problem with the current state" so 
>>> that all
>>> non-voters will be tallied as objectors, and see what happens.  :-)
>>
>>
>> Public web archive still got more votes even thought I said that you
>> do not have to vote if you want it to stay the same.
>>
>
> Yes, public web archive won.
>
> However, when the vote was started you said:
> "No voting counts as I don't care leave it the way it is"
>
> These are two different items.  Does not voting mean you dont care, or 
> does not voting mean that you are voting for the status quo?
>
> Dont care is not the same as wanting it to stay the same.  To assume 
> that everyone that didnt vote wanted it the same is not a legitimate 
> assumption. Frankly, I find it offensive. When you vote in a municipal 
> elections, the number of non-voters arent counted with the pro or con. 
>  Hershal's point was why should the non-votes be considered a vote for 
> the public archive?  If you re-ran the election, you would probably 
> get the same number of votes, but we could say it is clear mandate to 
> stop it from being a public archive.
>
> You state that only 3.5% want it changed when compared to the number 
> on the entire list, a clear mandate for public archive.  No, only 4% 
> want the public archive. Hardly a clear mandate.  The clear mandate is 
> that few people care very much. The clear mandate is to delete email 
> with this topic before reading it.
>
> jr
> john riehl
> (this mail will be gone when you delete it.  no archive, although it 
> is too late for this email address).
>
>