20 May 2002: Creation of uk.local.milton-keynes
From: Alex Holden <mlk-result@alex-holden.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 22:57:44 +0100
Subject: Result: CFV - Creation of uk.local.milton-keynes FAILS
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.local.thames-valley,uk.local.bedfordshire
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
RESULT: CFV - Creation of uk.local.milton-keynes FAILS
Summary:
Option A (Create Group) and Option C (Re-Open Discussion) did not
exceed a +12 vote margin over option B (Status Quo.)
Therefore the proposal FAILS.
======================================================================
Voting closed at 23:59:59 BST, 10th May, 2002
Proponent: Paul Cummins <paul@cummins.ie.eu.org>
Votetaker: Alex Holden <a.holden@ukvoting.org.uk>
Distribution:
uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.local.thames-valley,
uk.local.bedfordshire
======================================================================
The full results follow below in the following order:
1) Information on the ballot
2) Results
3) Individual Vote Details
4) Votetakers Comments
5) Voting and Appeal Guidelines
6) Rationale & Charter
======================================================================
Information on the ballot
- -------------------------
The options on the ballot were:
A: Create group
B: Status Quo (Do not create group)
C: Re-Open Discussion
45 votes were received during the lifetime of the vote. 4 votes were
either disallowed or superseded. 41 votes therefore went to the count.
======================================================================
RESULTS
Brief Results List
- -------------------
Multi-option votes in the uk.* hierarchy are decided by a two-stage
procedure. All options are first compared with votes for Status Quo
(SQ), in this ballot, option B, and any which are not preferred to
SQ by the required margin of 12 votes are eliminated. The remaining
options, if any, are then evaluated by the Condorcet method.
STAGE ONE:
Status Quo was preferred to Option A by a margin of 9 votes
Status Quo was preferred to Option C by a margin of 2 votes
As no options were preferred to Status Quo by a margin of 12 votes
or greater, no options progress to the second stage, and the
proposal therefore FAILS.
Although the Condorcet count is not required, full Condorcet tables
are provided below for voters' reference only.
Full Condorcet Tables
- ---------------------
Table 1 - Absolute Preferences Grid
A B C
A: Create group [n/a] [ 12] [ 13]
B: Do not create group [ 21] [n/a] [ 18]
C: Re-Open Discussion [ 16] [ 16] [n/a]
In this grid, each number represents the number of votes which were
cast that preferred the option named in the number's row to the
option appropriate to the number's column. For instance, 12 votes
preferred Option A to Option B while xx votes preferred Option C to
Option A.
Table 2 - Opposite Comparison Grid
A B C
A: Create group [n/a] [ -9] [ -3]
B: Do not create group [ 9] [n/a] [ 2]
C: Re-Open Discussion [ 3] [ -2] [n/a]
In this grid, each number represents the number of votes which were
cast that preferred the option named in the number's row to the
option appropriate to the number's column less the number of votes
which were cast that preferred the option named in the number's
Column to the option appropriate to the number's row.
The winning option in the absolute table is that where all the numbers
in its row are higher than the number in the equivalent position in
its column. The winning option in the relative table is that which has
all positive numbers in its row and all negative numbers in its
column.
Individual Vote Details
- -----------------------
Notes:
1. Voters were asked to rank the options from 1 (highest) to 3
(lowest).
Equal rankings are allowed, and any unranked options are
considered to be ranked below all ranked options.
2. Voters used a variety of different marks (or lack of them) to
indicate unranked options. Irrespective of the actual character
used, all unranked options have been represented in the table by
'-' (dash).
3. The votes column shows the ranking given by the voter to each
option.
For example:
A B C
voter 1 1 2 3
voter 2 - 1 -
Voter 1 ranked option A first, then B, and then C.
Voter 2 ranked Option B first, and left the other options unranked.
4. The preferences column shows in a different format how the voter
ranked (or did not rank) each option.
Name Address A B C Preference
- ---- ------- - - - ----------
{R} {R}#semolina@gro 3,1,2 B>C>A
Adam Price adam+usenet#pappnase@oc@ku 3,1,2 B>C>A
Andrew Stoker andrew#peek-a-boo@ogr@ku 3,1,2 B>C>A
athomik mail#askadrian@oc@ku 1,3,2 A>C>B
Brian B brian#brianb@u-net@moc 3,2,1 C>B>A
Bryan Souster bryan@souster#ntlworld@moc 1,3,2 A>C>B
Chris Croughton chris#keristor@gro 1,3,2 A>C>B
Dave Dave#community-spirit@demon@oc@ku
3,1,2 B>C>A
Dave Johnson requiem#freeuk@moc 3,2,1 C>B>A
David Briggs brigfamily#softhome@ten 1,3,2 A>C>B
David Uri davidurivest#bigfoot@moc 1,3,2 A>C>B
David Wood david#wood2@ogr@ku 1,3,2 A>C>B
Denis McMahon denis#pickaxe@demon@oc@ku 3,1,2 B>C>A
DG dickg#dickalba@demon@oc@ku -,-,- Abstain
fraggle news1#ukrm@oc@ku 1,3,2 A>C>B
Grant Mason news#mason@sh 3,1,2 B>C>A
James Bentall jimney#bigfoot@moc -,1,- B>A=C
James Farrar londonstatto#yahoo@oc@ku 1,1,2 A=B>C
Jeffery Goldberg jeffrey#goldmark@gro 1,1,1 No Preference
Jezza jezza#hotwells@freeserve@oc@ku
1,3,2 A>C>B
John the R-T t_e_n_e_s_u#hotmail@moc 3,1,3 B>A=C
Juggs glenys#tgis@oc@ku 3,1,2 B>C>A
M J Ray markj+0110#cloaked@freeserve@oc@ku
-,2,1 C>B>A
Malcolm Mladenovic mbm#tinc@ogr@ku -,-,- Abstain
Mark Hudson abuse#markhudson@moc 3,1,2 B>C>A
Mike Bristow mike#urgle@moc 2,1,2 B>A=C
paul {voter}#watman@clara@oc@ku -,1,2 B>C>A
Paul Cummins paul#cummins@ie@eu@gro 1,-,2 A>C>B
Paul Harper paul#harper@ten 3,1,2 B>C>A
Paul Leake p@j@leake#durham@ca@ku 1,3,2 A>C>B
Peter Parry peter#wpp@tld@ku 3,1,2 B>C>A
Peter Smyth psmyth#gmx@ten 1,3,2 A>C>B
Philip Powell philip#blencathra@ogr@ku -,-,- Abstain
Richard Kettlewell richard+miltk#sfere@greenend@ogr@ku
1,1,1 No Preference
richard tibbetts richard#primepeace@tld@ku 3,2,1 C>B>A
Rosemary Wright outofthewoods#ntlworld@moc 1,3,2 A>C>B
Simon Gardner 666_#hack@powernet@oc@ku 3,1,3 B>A=C
Steve Firth %steve%#malloc@oc@ku -,1,- B>A=C
Thomas Lee tfl#psp@oc@ku 3,3,3 No Preference
Tracy Tracylj#talk21@moc 3,1,2 B>C>A
xphoenix col#xphoenix@oc@ku 3,1,2 B>C>A
Votes not counted
- -----------------
Sue M-B sue.sue@malsoft#ntlworld@moc
Flame mail, ballot paper not filled in. CFV sent with invitation
to vote, no reply.
3 voters attempted to vote more than once. One voter changed their
e-mail address on their second vote. The acknowledgement to that
address bounced. Since the voter's preferences remained unchanged,
I counted their original vote.
======================================================================
Votetaker's Comments
Turnout was fair for this vote, barring the exception above, all
voters managed to express some kind of preference correctly first
time.
Voters have used varying ways of expressing no preference or an
abstention. Where voters entered an equal figure in all three boxes,
it was clear that the voter had no preference. However as the voter
had ranked - albeit equally - the options, I felt that distinction
had to be made between these and those options left blank by others.
I have classed these votes where all three options have been equally
ranked as "No Preference." Voters who left all three options blank
have been classed as "Abstain." The end result, however is the same.
======================================================================
This vote was conducted by a neutral third party member of UKVoting.
UKVoting is a group of independent votetakers who count votes on
behalf of the uk.* hierarchy and other 3rd parties.
The rules under which votes for the uk.* hierarchy are taken are
posted regularly to uk.net.news.announce or can be found at the
following URL:
<ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-info/news.answers/uk/voting>
The UKVoting web pages can be found at <http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/>
There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted
to uk.net.news.announce.
Allegations of irregularity should be sent to control@usenet.org.uk.
======================================================================
Rationale and Charter from the proposal:
Rationale:
There are many newsgroups in the uk.local* hierarchy showing that
there is an obvious need for local uk specific content.
At present there is no newsgroup dedicated to or directly related to
the town of Milton Keynes.
Milton Keynes residents are currently expected to use the
uk.local.thames-valley group, which, while having a relevance,
actually covers areas which are not adjacent to or naturally linked to
Milton Keynes, therefore the reasoning behind a Milton-Keynes centric
newsgroup is obvious. The Thames Valley newsgroup has, in the last 6
months, had less than one posting a week about Milton Keynes, yet
other groups do get postings about the town, including many on
uk.local.bedfordshire.
Proposed Charter:
This newsgroup is about Milton Keynes in England, its residents and
those who are interested in current affairs of, and/or the history of,
Milton Keynes.
A forum for requesting and disseminating information and views about
living in, visiting or being a descendant from Milton Keynes.
Contributions are welcome from people who live, work or study in the
Town, or have an interest in the Town.
Advertising
Advertising is forbidden
Cross-Posting
Messages posted to this newsgroup must not be cross-posted to more
than a TOTAL of four uk.local.* newsgroups; these may be
geographically adjacent or overlapping, or connected by the subject
of the post (e.g. "moving house from Southampton to Milton Keynes").
Note that the advertising of widely-available goods or services is
*not* relevant in this context, and that most uk.local.* groups
have restrictions on advertising, or prohibit it. Cross-posted
adverts, where allowed, must meet the requirements of the charters
of *all* groups involved.
Binaries & Formatting
Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a
pointer may be posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be
used where authentication is important and should be as short as
possible.
Posts must be readable as plaintext. HTML, RTF and similarly formatted
messages are prohibited. To see how to make your newsreader comply
with this, read <http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>.
Warning
Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to their
"postmaster" and/or Service Provider.
End Charter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBPOlxWGOfGXkh8vHZAQF/6gP+ODc7yv2PtRmDyqXjd+2Ea9sneCs+0Uhg
8PKW9tuRQx0YCbbyLlMrumX+sZKTfn9juTx7T03nnmRPi5OiB9KJj+bAQYgkukti
6DIRkB054+Mf+1e66d4NUKfaFlXk9RegwF8AfySwNg31eKTyqOn2toQGx0Jc7ZMy
/OPOTMMkvXM=
=bXf3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You can also see the raw article.
Back ot the UKVoting homepage
