Re: Vote tally for period FAQ posting

From: Paul Drake <drak0nian_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 27 Jan 2004 22:23:24 -0800
Message-ID: <1ac7c7b3.0401272223.116d46c9_at_posting.google.com>


joel-garry_at_home.com (Joel Garry) wrote in message news:<91884734.0401271708.4e4c8c20_at_posting.google.com>...
> Hans Forbrich <hforbric_at_yahoo.net> wrote in message news:<4016A39E.2BA433BA@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

ok.

RTFM !_at_#$%^&*()

Pd Received on Wed Jan 28 2004 - 07:23:24 CET

Original text of this message