Limited voting in EM

[Saari at aol.com]

In a message dated 97-03-14 02:59:22 EST, you write:

>Rob L wrote:
>> The voting method that I proposed was *only* for finished documents.
>> That's it.  Nothing else is binding in my book.
>> 
>> It's a pure YES/NO vote (or SUPPORT/OPPOSE, I could care less) for
>> finished documents.  When a finished document is approved, the old
>> FAQ is replaced with a new one.

This is too bad.  Because the topic of voting methods is still evolving, I
was really hoping for a method whereby this group could work *together* to
evolve and iterate a FAQ which would become better and better over time.  I
had thought that the process of piecewise proposals and debates would help us
all to better understand the subject.  There is nothing like trying to create
an explanatory document to induce better understanding!

Instead, Rob will only allow very limited voting on finished products.  This
likely means that the work of generating a new draft(s) will be done offline
individually or in small groups.  The EM members will only have very limited
opportunities to rubberstamp a finished product.  And we are likely more
likely to flip-flop between competing proposals (if anyone bothers) rather
than moving steadily toward a group consensus.

I have some ideas for FAQ contents, but I am not especially interested in
trying to write one all by myself.  I would be happy to participate with a
sub-group in this, but only if it is organized as a "society of equals"
instead of the usual hierarchical methods.  I had thought it would be fun to
use the EM list as a whole for this (where non-participants could simply
ignore "CFV" messages) but it looks like Rob won't allow this.

If anyone wishes to participate together to generate a new FAQ offline -
please contact me.  Perhaps a smaller working group...?

In the meantime, Rob seems determined to "maintain control" of this group (by
limiting the topics we can vote on).  And there is already confusion since
his version differs from my proposed version.  So it would probably be best
if *he* would reiterate just what are the voting rules for this group
(including allowed and disallowed topics for voting).

Disappointed,
Mike S