Beirne Konarski wrote:
> The list grew out of a failed vote on rec.unicycling several years ago.
It would be interesting, if anyone could remember the vote, what reasons people
gave for voting no. Perhaps they had some valid points?
A rec.unicycling, I think, would be far more convenient that all this mail
“cluttering” up my inbox. Most news-readers handle this sort of communication
better than most mail-readers.
On the same note, I would appreciate it if people DIDN’T send around mail
messages saying only “me too” to the list, but instead directed it straight to
Beirne. Discussion is, of course, welcome.
> BTW, we currently have 109 people on the mailing list.
> If everyone on the list voted yes, we could stand 9 no votes from elsewhere.
It is unrealistic to expect everyone on the list to (a) be keeping up with the
list and following the discussion, (b) being capable of sending a news message
to the appropriate group and © caring enough to do so.
Perhaps I am being overly cynical, but I doubt if over 40 people from the list
would vote either way. I don’t mean this as a poor reflection on the list, but I
think it would be unfortunate if an enthusiastic few started the vote without
getting the expected support. (Not to mention making it even harder to get the
vote next time.)
On the other hand, I would expect that each voter on the list would be capable
of persuading a few others to vote. Rec.juggling would also be the source of a
few more votes. Having a good FAQ also would count in our favour.
I would vote yes for rec.unicycling, and what’s more, I am sure I could
persuade at least five others not on the list that what they really need in
their life is a rec.unicycling newsgroup. Even if I could only persuade them
long enough to vote…
– Julian Orbach (email@example.com) – University of Queensland,