05 May 2001: Change the guidelines of group creation (objectors needed to stop a fast-track)
From: Mark Goodge <m.goodge@ukvoting.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 08:13:15 +0100
Subject: Result: Change the guidelines of group creation (objectors
needed to stop a fast-track) PASSES with option B - Amend number of
objectors to 6
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.management
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Result: Change the guidelines of group creation (objectors needed to stop a
fast-track) PASSES with option B - Amend number of objectors to 6
Summary
Option B was preferred by a majority of voters to all other options, and
exceeded the +12 margin over Option D (Status Quo).
Therefore, Option B wins.
======================================================================
Voting closed at 23:59:59 BST, 27th April 2001
Proponent: Andrew Hartley <andy@eastupham.freeserve.co.uk>
Votetakers: Mark Goodge <m.goodge@ukvoting.org.uk>
Molly Mockford <m.mockford@ukvoting.org.uk>
Distribution:
uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config, uk.net.news.management
======================================================================
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
======================================================================
Information on the ballot
The options on the ballot were:
A: Amend number of required objectors to 8
B: Amend number of required objectors to 6
C: Re-Open Discussion
D: Status Quo (Do not amend number of objectors)
======================================================================
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),
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.
There were 83 votes cast.
STAGE ONE:
Option A was preferred to SQ (Option D) by a margin of 6 votes
Option B was preferred to SQ (Option D) by a margin of 25 votes
Option C was defeated by SQ (Option D) by a margin of 17 votes
Therefore, option B is the winner as it is the only option preferred to SQ
by the required margin.
A full Condorcet count was not required to determine the winning option,
but the tables are included here for reference.
Full Condorcet Tables
Table 1 - Absolute Figures (Raw Preferences Grid)
A B C D
A (8 objectors) [n/a] [ 33] [ 51] [ 44]
B (6 objectors) [ 47] [n/a] [ 54] [ 52]
C (Re-open discussion) [ 30] [ 27] [n/a] [ 31]
D (status Quo) [ 38] [ 27] [ 48] [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, 33 votes preferred Option
A to Option B while 30 votes preferred Option C to Option A.
Table 2 - Relative Figures (Opposite Comparison Grid)
A B C D
A (8 objectors) [n/a] [-14] [ 21] [ 6]
B (6 objectors) [ 14] [n/a] [ 27] [ 25]
C (Re-open discussion) [-21] [-27] [n/a] [-17]
D (status Quo) [ -6] [-25] [ 17] [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. For example, 21 more people preferred
Option A to Option C than preferred C to A, and 14 more people preferred
Option B to Option A than preferred A to B.
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. (On
this ballot, this is Option B).
======================================================================
Individual Vote Details
Notes:
1. Voters were asked to rank the options from 1 (highest) to 4 (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 D
voter 1 1 2 4 3
voter 2 - 2 - 1
Voter 1 ranked option A first, then B, then D, and then C.
Voter 2 ranked Option D first, then B, and left the other options unranked.
Name Email A B C D
{R} {R}?voting@semolina@gro 4 3 2 1
Alan Fleming af?etrigan@gro - - 2 1
Alan Ford alan?whirlnet@co@ku 4 2 1 3
Alex D@ Baxter alex-news?oenone@demon@co@ku 4 3 2 1
Alex Holden votes?alex-holden@co@ku 3 1 3 2
Alistair Gunn palmersperry?yahoo@moc - 1 2 3
Andrew Hartley andy?eastupham@freeserve@co@ku 1 2 3 4
Andrew Marshall andrew?g8bur@demon@co@ku 1 2 3 4
Andy Roberts andyrobts?zetnet@co@ku 4 3 1 2
Andy Mabbett andy?pigsonthewing@gro@ku 3 2 4 1
astral alice alice?darkwave@gro@ku 2 1 - -
Austin Shackles austin?ddol-las@telinco@co@ku 1 1 3 2
Barry Dorrans barryd?bann@co@ku 2 1 - 3
Ben Whyte ben?funky-badger@gro 1 2 3 -
Brett Paul Dunbar brett?dimetrodon@demon@co@ku 1 2 3 4
Bruce Mardle bruce?algol@demon@co@ku 3 2 4 1
Bryan bsp13?btinternet@moc 4 3 2 1
Charles Bryant ob86@vote@ch?chch@demon@co@ku 4 3 2 1
Charles Lindsey chl?clw@cs@man@ac@ku 2 1 4 3
Chris Croughton chris?keristor@gro 1 3 2 -
Clive Martin clive?cmartin@demon@co@ku 1 2 3 4
Dave Hillam dave?hbarnet@freeserve@co@ku 1 2 3 4
Dave Mayall david@mayall?ukonline@co@ku 1 2 3 4
Dave Millard dave?focus3@ku@moc 1 2 3 3
Dave Mills Davemills?ravesw@demon@co@ku 1 2 4 3
Dave Painter dave@painter?care4free@ten 2 1 4 3
Dave Sparks Dave@Sparks?sisyphus@demon@co@ku - 3 2 1
David Mahon obguide_dmahon?amigo@co@ku 4 3 2 1
Denis F bedfordtlfan?yahoo@moc 4 3 2 1
DinkiPixie dinkipix?dinkipix@co@ku 1 2 4 4
draenog draenog?yon-net@demon@co@ku 1 2 3 4
Duncan Dewar duncanng2?bute@gro@ku 4 3 2 1
Eddie Bernard usenet?ebernard@greatxscape@ten 1 2 3 4
Frankie Roberto frankie@roberto?lineone@ten 3 2 4 1
Graham Drabble graham@drabble?lineone@ten 3 2 1 2
Huge Huge?huge@gro@ku 1 - - -
Iain Bowen alaric?alaric@gro@ku 4 2 1 3
Ian Chard ian?tanagra@demon@co@ku 2 1 3 4
Ian Kitching i@m@kitching?anglia@ac@ku 1 2 4 3
Jack Howard {J}?stormshadow@co@ku 1 2 4 3
James Coupe james?zephyr@gro@ku 1 2 2 3
James Farrar londonstatto?yahoo@co@ku 1 2 3 -
Jezza jezza?hotwells@freeserve@co@ku 2 1 4 3
John B jcb?avism@demon@co@ku 1 2 3 4
Jon Thomson jon?thomson2273@freeserve@co@ku 3 2 4 1
Jonathan Wheeler J@F@Wheeler?rl@ac@ku 1 2 3 4
Julie Brandon julie-vote?computergeeks@co@ku 4 3 2 1
Justa Lurker jlurker?bigfoot@moc 4 2 3 1
Kevin Andreoli kevin?andreoli@co@ku 4 3 2 1
Lachlan lachlan?excommunicant@co@ku 4 3 2 1
Lesley lesley?haytor@freeserve@co@ku 3 1 3 2
Malcolm Mladenovic mbm?tinc@gro@ku - 1 3 2
Mark Eller Marell?ellmar@demon@co@ku 1 2 3 4
Mark Tyndall mrt102?york@ac@ku 3 2 1 4
Martin Biddiscombe Martin?priatel@globalnet@co@ku 1 2 4 3
Michael Farthing mf?cyclades@demon@co@ku 1 2 4 3
Michael Parry michael?cavrdg@demon@co@ku 1 2 3 4
Mike Bristow mike?urgle@moc 3 1 4 2
Mike Fleming mike?tauzero@co@ku 1 2 3 4
Mike Pitt mikepitt?chiark@greenend@gro@ku 4 3 2 1
Neil Fernandez ncf?borve@demon@co@ku 4 3 2 1
Nick Regan nick?nregan@co@ku 1 2 3 4
Owen Rees owenrees?waitrose@moc 1 2 4 3
Paul Bolchover pb10003?damtp@cam@ac@ku 4 1 3 2
Paul Harris paul?harrisp@demon@co@ku 2 1 3 4
Pekka P. Pirinen ppp?pirinen@demon@co@ku 4 3 2 1
Peter G Sheppard peter?sheppard@clara@ten 1 2 3 4
Peter Munn pmunnsub?pearce-neptune@demon@co@ku 4 3 2 1
Philip Powell philip?blencathra@gro@ku 1 2 3 4
Rex M F Smith sumisu?gehena@demon@co@ku 1 3 2 4
Richard Clayton richard?highwayman@moc 4 3 2 1
Richard Kennaway jrk?sys@uea@ac@ku 4 2 1 3
Richard Kettlewell richard+obguide?sfere@greenend@gro@ku 4 3 2 1
Rob Linham robert@linham?sjc@ox@ac@ku 4 3 2 1
robbie robbie?arrakis@un 1 2 4 2
squire squireb?bryhod99@demon@co@ku 4 1 3 2
Steve Firth %steve%?malloc@co@ku 3 2 4 1
Tez Boyes tez?pierrot@co@ku 1 2 4 3
Thomas Lee tfl?psp@co@ku 2 1 4 3
tobias erle torex?ey-du-sau@de 3 2 4 1
Tom Harris t@harris?iname@moc 1 2 4 3
Tony tony?darkstorm@co@ku 1 1 2 1
Tony Towers tony?cats@tele2@co@ku 2 1 3 -
There were no invalid votes other than those subsequently overridden by the
voters.
======================================================================
Votetaker's Comments
Despite the relatively high turnout, there were no major problems with the
vote. Only one ballot was cast incorrectly, and this was subsequently
corrected by the voter. No acknowledgements bounced. There were a small
number of duplicate votes received; these have not been noted in the
results as the guidelines permit repeat voting with the latest vote
received being the one counted.
One vote was cast as if for FPTP (a single 'X' in one box); this was
counted as a Condorcet vote of '1' for the selected option and '-' for the
other options.
======================================================================
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 Proposal from the CFV
RATIONALE
Many new groups and proposals are being delayed because of the '4
objections' rule in the fast-track process because of objections that are
not well founded, almost all of these proposals that continued to CFV
passed comfortably. This RFD try's to extend that number to a higher value.
The number of eight was reached in an independent strawpoll conducted in
uk.net.news.management. The first paragraph of Section 5 under "discussion"
of the Guidelines currently reads:
If, by the end of the initial discussion period, a consensus has
been reached and the proposal appears to be straightforward and
non-controversial, the proponent may, within 40 days of the original
publication of the most recent RFD, ask control@usenet.org.uk to
create the group by the "fast-track" method. If Control (as advised
by the Committee) is satisfied of this, he will announce in
uk.net.news.announce that, in the absence of valid objections, the
new group will be created on a date not less than 5 days
thereafter.
In the event of 4 or more objections, or any objection which seems
to the Committee to be well founded, the fast-track procedure shall
be halted, and the RFD should either proceed to a vote, or have a
revised RFD submitted for further discussion. In circumstances where
the fast-track has failed on only minor problems, the proponent is
permitted to correct these, and re-submit a fast-track request with
the corrections, which shall then be conducted as above.
PROPOSAL
Amend the paragraph 5 of "The Discussion" within the document "GUIDELINES
FOR GROUP CREATION WITHIN THE UK HIERARCHY"
Replace the words
"In the event of 4 or more objections, or any objection which seems
to the Committee to be well founded ..."
by
"In the event of 8 or more objections, or any objection which seems
to the Committee to be well founded ..."
(Option A on the ballot form)
or
"In the event of 6 or more objections, or any objection which seems
to the Committee to be well founded ..."
(Option B on the ballot form)
=================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBOvOoDGOfGXkh8vHZAQEEfAP9FIaNB7R2Bn7XKROm+CwvsVwnXWjypOLh
T+2jpADkZfMRqcW/iIYP9vZ88RyUyjgmOJ7AmKkhfTw+G1O4SfuFf1gQi0IXHjfF
wWJyCt/AipATx2bZQX6YfPNAZNNn2LxSUQreAJMW4JSYVkcfmK6RaQnEaAKdKKhx
mMTHtqSx5uI=
=jBmY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You can also see the raw article.
Back ot the UKVoting homepage
