14 Oct 2001: Re-Chartering uk.culture.arts.writing
From: Mark Goodge <m.goodge@ukvoting.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 12:47:47 +0100
Subject: RESULT: re-charter of uk.culture.arts.writing FAILS
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.culture.arts.writing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Result: re-charter of uk.culture.arts.writing FAILS as +12 requirement not met.
Summary
CFV: re-charter of uk.culture.arts.writing received 12 votes in favour and
3 against, with 5 abstentions. This fails to meet the requirement for a
winning margin of 12 or greater. Therefore, the proposal fails.
Voting closed at 23:59:59 BST, 9th October 2001
Proponent: Jack Howard <{J}@stormshadow.co.uk>
Votetaker: Mark Goodge <m.goodge@ukvoting.org.uk>
Distribution:
uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config, uk.culture.arts.writing
======================================================================
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 and Proposal
======================================================================
INFORMATION ON THE BALLOT
Voters were asked to vote separately on three questions:
Section 1: Amend the charter of uk.culture.arts.writing as proposed?
YES/NO
Section 2: If the proposal is passed, which version of the copyright
warning should be used?
SHORT/LONG
Section 3: If the proposal is passed, what should be the maximum number of
lines permitted?
A: 100 lines
B: 200 lines
C: 500 lines
D: 750 lines
E: unlimited
Sections 1 and 2 were simple 2-option votes. Section 3 was a multi-option
vote using the Condorcet voting system.
======================================================================
RESULTS
There were 20 valid votes cast.
Section 1
YES: 12
NO: 3
ABSTAIN: 5
Under the Voting Procedures for the uk.* Hierarchy, a winning option must
have at least 12 YES votes more than NO votes. In this case, the winning
margin did not reach this number and the proposal therefore fails.
As the proposal to amend the charter fails, it was not necessary to
evaluate the remaining options. The information is presented in the vote
tables, below, purely for reference and to allow voters to verify their vote.
======================================================================
INDIVIDUAL VOTE DETAILS
Notes:
1. In sections 1, voters were asked to chose between YES and NO. In section
2, voters were asked to choose between LONG and SHORT. These are
represented in the vote column by 'Y', 'N', 'L' and 'S' respectively, with
'A' indicating an abstention.
2. In section 3, voters were asked to rank the options from 1 (highest) to
5 (lowest). Equal rankings are allowed, and any unranked options are
considered to be ranked below all ranked options.
3. Voters used a variety of different marks (or lack of them) to indicate
unranked options or abstentions. Irrespective of the actual character used,
all unranked options have been represented in sections 1 and 2 by 'A' and
in section 3 by '-' (dash).
Section 1 2 3
Name Email | | A B C D E
David Hadley ah004a2055?cableinet@co@ku N L 1 2 3 4 5
David Mahon dmahonvote-UCAW-RC?amigo@co@ku N L 1 2 3 4 5
Glenys Pople gkp?howfen@demon@co@ku Y L 5 4 3 2 1
Jon Thomson J@A@Thomson?warwick@ac@ku Y S 3 2 1 3 4
Jack Howard {J}?stormshadow@co@ku Y L - - 1 2 3
Monkey Doctor (aka MD) james?beresfordj@freeserve@co@ku Y L 5 4 3 2 1
James Coupe james?zephyr@org@ku A A 1 1 1 1 1
Jeffrey Goldberg jeffrey?goldmark@gro A S 2 1 3 4 5
Jezza jezza?hotwells@freeserve@co@ku Y L 2 1 3 4 5
Mark Tyndall mrt102?york@ac@ku Y S 3 2 1 2 3
Mark Wallace mwallace?noknok@ln Y L - - 1 - -
MJR markj+vote?cloaked@freeserve@co@ku A L 3 2 1 4 5
Peter J Ross peter@j@ross?btinternet@moc Y S 5 4 3 2 1
Peter Smyth psmyth?gmx@ten Y S 2 1 3 4 5
Philip Powell philip?blencathra@org@ku A A - - - - -
Rex M F Smith sumisu?gehena@demon@co@ku Y L 4 2 1 3 5
Rob Linham rob_linham?yahoo@co@ku A L 3 2 1 4 5
SANWIN sanwin?lineone@ten N L 1 2 3 4 5
Stuart Stanton-Davies Stuart?Stuartd@demon@co@ku Y S 5 4 3 2 1
thomas lee tfl?psp@co@ku Y S 1 2 3 4 5
Invalid votes:
Nigel Ashton nigel?nigelashton@co@ku Ack bounced
======================================================================
VOTETAKER'S COMMENTS
A very low turnout made counting this ballot a trivial exercise - it took
longer to write up the results.
Although sections 2 and 3 didn't need to be formally evaluated, I tallied
them anyway purely for information. The long version of the copyright
warning had a small majority, 11 to 7. Option C would have won the line
length restriction.
======================================================================
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 for re-charter of uk.culture.arts.writing
The original charter of this group prohibited the posting of works of
writing. Experience has shown the group to be more useful and lively
if the posting of work, for critique and discussion, is permitted, so
this RFD seeks to "accommodate" such postings. As far as possible
this charter has been derived from the current Mini-FAQ of UCAW, with
amendments suggested by various readers of uk.net.news.config during a
previous re-chartering attempt.
Proposal: Change the charter of uk.culture.arts.writing to the following:
Newsgroups line:
uk.culture.arts.writing Discussion & critique of all forms of writing in
the UK
Charter uk.culture.arts.writing
UCAW is aimed to be a UK-centred group where writers, and those
interested in the subject of writing, can discuss work and opinions
about writing in the English language.
[i] Original writing
Somewhere for writers (of all genres/forms), with a UK interest, to
post their work and have it discussed and critiqued by
others. Somewhere for readers to cast their eye over new writers work,
with a UK connection, for interest.
# Begin Alternative wording
# Copyright warning: long version
Note: Potential posters beware, once a work has been posted to Usenet,
it is highly unlikely to be accepted for publication by any commercial
organization. While technically you retain copyright, posting a work
to Usenet is regarded in some quarters as releasing it to the Public
Domain. UCAW is intended for those wishing to learn the craft of
writing, rather than for final publication of completed works. A work
posted on UCAW will in all likelihood be un-saleable anywhere else.
# OR
# Copyright warning: short
Potential posters should be aware that once work has been posted to
Usenet, commercial publishers may be unwilling to republish it.
# End alternative wording
[ii] Publishing
For people to ask questions, offer insights and assistance with the
practicalities of getting work published in the United Kingdom.
[iii] Discussion
Readers, academics, writers, and anyone else interested in the
subject, can use UCAW to discuss the work of published authors, points
on style and grammar, and anything else that roughly fits in.
What is acceptable posting?
[G] Generally
As per pretty much anywhere on Usenet, personal abuse is unacceptable
and so is spam. Post your own works, or constructively comment on
other people's posts, and everyone gains. See also the note on
"Formatting" below.
[i] Original writing
It's probably a good idea to prefix the header with [story], [essay],
[poem], or other appropriate description just so people know what
you're about. A word count in the subject line may also be helpful.
Length: Postings should generally be restricted to a maximum length of
\nnnnn\ lines of no more than 72 characters. Very long posts are
unlikely to be read, and are also wasteful of news server disk space
and transmission - remember, any article you post will be copied and
stored on thousands of computer systems around the world.
# The value of \nnnnn\ in the paragraph above is to be decided by vote.
# If the vote is in favour of no maximum, the first
# sentence will be deleted entirely.
[ii] Publishing
If you offer any opinions regarding publishing, it would help if you
qualify comments with your experiences. It will add some weight to
your observations. Again, this isn't a hard and fast rule, just a
suggestion.
Advertising
Advertising is forbidden.
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.
Posters are asked to refrain from using cryptographic signatures
unnecessarily.
Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly formatted
messages are prohibited. To see how to make some common newsreaders comply
with this, read <URL: http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>.
Warning
Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to their
System Administrator and/or Service Provider.
END CHARTER
=================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBO8l7Y2OfGXkh8vHZAQGj9gP9Gz7YLt7meDRspCTfG9GwB3M6UMGM/BXD
LxH/CgNe25i6g6ynj1639T6lU6bUYSqqvTws0192MvJfc19u5UoMj+T+jih1kzoe
E64EdmhjEd8UGcjF7j/o54judjuovNvhTcl8D0xEu7LsLEf9WMYShvjwTy2xfwUn
QbOQMduPpyE=
=4E3K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You can also see the raw article.
Back ot the UKVoting homepage
