[Gllug] (no subject)

[Alex Gonzalez]

ben f wrote:
>>>As I see it, if we had a fix number of people 
>>>( i.e members of a mailing list ), we set a 
>>>period of time to give a vote on something, and we
>>>apply simple mayority after that time, 
>>>at least things move.
>>>
> 
> I agree with this in principle, but the definition
> needs refining to avoid chaos!
> 
> Here are some ideas:
> 
> We should have a default period of time between each
> question and vote deadline (say 7 days). Anyone can
> ask a "question". If you don't like the way a question
> is worded (i.e. it's a bit too "New Labour"), make
> your own question and see how people respond to that.
> 
> Each "question" marks the start of a thread and all
> subsequent votes must be a reply to this thread.
> 
> Each question must have a clear range of acceptable
> vote responses to allow for easy voting e.g. option1,
> option2 or option3. No "please let me know your
> opinion" for this type of thread.
> 
> The voting threads should be under their own mail
> address on the mail server. General discussion etc.
> should be separate.
> 
> This would need someone to keep track of it all. As
> the pedant to delve into this, I will also volunteer
> to keep track of the votes passed on issues........
> 
> Okay, that's my tuppence worth of ideas on making
> quick(ish) decisions in a fair way.
> 
> Pity we can't vote on it as we don't have any rules
> yet! Help, I'm stuck in a recursive loop.......... ;)
> 
> Ben
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
> 
> 

Sounds interesting, though I would not describe it as quick. Actually, 
the "last word" man/woman idea is quicker, and the role can be round 
robined if needed.

Alex


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug