Re: Vote tally for period FAQ posting

Hans Forbrich <hforbric_at_yahoo.net> wrote in message news:<4016A39E.2BA433BA_at_yahoo.net>...
> Niall Litchfield wrote:
> >
> > "Hans Forbrich" <cdo_ng_cfv_at_telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:4015E1F1.2CC3B22C_at_telus.net...
> > > (Apologies for the cross post.)
> > >
> > > The response to the call for votes around the periodic FAQ post has been
> > > underwhelming, as can be seen below. I'm not quite sure how to
> > > interpret the results. (For the sake of amusement, 3 were incorrectly
> > > addressed and one could not be verified.)
> > <snip>
> >
> > I think I'd interpret the level of response as reflecting the level of
> > interest in doing anything about the issues you raised. In other words
> > probably don't bother...
> >
>
> I didn't raise the issue - I just responded with the proposal.
>
> Let the whining continue?

Or just let whoever wants to post faqs go ahead and do it. Add this discussion of the issues to the faq, and if anyone whines... point them to the faq!

I seem to recall that most votes for things like usenet group changes require a minimum response of something like a 100, defaulting to "no" if the minimum is not reached. Or maybe that's "null." :-)

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.02/india.html