We Discuss _Proposed_ methods.

[Mike Ossipoff]

Rob Lanphier writes:
> 
> On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Mike Ossipoff wrote:
> > Demorep & Bruce: How would you feel about "methods-all-encompassing"?
> > You could discuss many, many methods, without putting that discussion
> > on election-methods-list, where the Single-Winner Committee has a
> > specific task to do, choosing among a few proposed methods.
> 
> Mike, I really love how you seem to want to run the show here.  Look, I

Nonsense, Rob. I suggest a new list, and you say that I'm trying to
"run the show". I wasn't aware that I, and any other member couldn't
make suggestions. Is there just 1 person who runs the show? Did
I step on royal toes?

> started this list because I was tired of folks whining about posts that
> you and I and others made to the e.r. list.  Now you want to turn around

Did you ever define em as a list for all-encompassing discussion of
every method that anyone could define? If so, then excuse me for
missing that declaration. When we started the Single-Winner Committee,
we specifically agreed (not just I) that the Single-Winner Committee
was for the purpose of discussing, comparing & evaluating those sw
methods that were proposed as the best to offer to the public, for
the purpose of recommending to ER about that. That was the stated
founding principle of the SWC, and there was agreement from others
that SWC was no place to disuss methods not proposed for the
recommendatin to ER.

Maybe the problem is that EM doesn't have a statement of purpose
and SWC does. Maybe you'll now declare EM for the purpose of
all-encompassing discussion, no topic limits. That would be
a new declaration by you. I'd hope that you wouldn't do that, because
several people (weren't you one of them?) said that the SWC should
use EM for its discussion. I had some doubt about that idea at
the time. Now that EM is being flooded with sw discussion that's
quite irrelevant to SWC's stated & agreed-upon purpose, I'd 
like to go back to my original suggestion that SWC operate as
a "group-reply" committee, rather than using the EM list.

Since (it seems to me) that you said that SWC should use EM,
it seems odd that you're now saying that EM should carry
sw mail that wastes SWC's time.

> and limit other peoples' posts.  You may feel free to put them in your
> kill file or unsubscribe from e.m., but don't try to limit them. 
> 
> Mike, you are free to compile a set of recommendations and gather
> "signatures" for them.  This makes far more sense than calling votes and

Thank you for granting me those freedoms. I'm also free to suggest
that SWC operate as a "group-reply" group, which was my original
suggestion, and which I'm re-suggesting now, since from what you're
saying, EM's range of sw topics is quite different from the one
originally stated & agreed to by SWC.


> forcing people to endorse methods they don't believe in.  Furthermore, you

Again, nonsense. When did I force anyone to endorse something they
didn't believe in? What the hell are you talking about? Where were
you when we started the SWC? I didn't force anyone to join SWC.
The founding purpose of SWC was to discuss, evaluate, compare
& vote on sw methods, for the purpose of recommending to ER
about it.

> are more than welcome to set up your own web site and mailing list to run
> as you see fit.  Please don't try to run mine. 

You offered yours for the use of SWC. I pointed out that we were
getting lots of sw mail that was wasting SWC's time. You're a
little late in declaring EM's sw discussion to be all-encompassing,
since you'd previously said that a committee with a specific
purpose should use EM.

Thank you for welcoming me to set up my own web site or mailing
list. 

I'd accept your generous permission to quit EM, but first I want
to answer a few statements by Bruce, and then I'm out of here.
Obviously it won't be possible to keep answering statments from
Bruce, or others, due to a problem with the list-owner. But
I'll answer a few things, and will pre-emptively answer
a few arguments that are likely to be used later, and that
will have to do. These replies will be brief.

One thing: You're out of line to complain that I proposed a vote.
As I said, SWC was started, & joined, with the purpose of voting
on an sw recommendation to ER. You invited SWC to use EM, though
you knew that voting was part of that committee's stated purpose.


> 
> Thank you.

No, thank you.

> 
> Rob Lanphier
> robla at eskimo.com
> http://www.eskimo.com/~robla
> 
> .-
> 


--