>I would remind everyone who believes in "straw poll results" that this
>news group is a member of the comp hierarchy. As such, you require
>very stringent and specified rules for creating new groups (or
>They require a RFD, a DISCUSSION period (on the proper news group) and a
>FORMAL __not_straw__ VOTE.
Correct, but the *requirements* don't disallow the use of an informal poll
to decide whether to pursue the RFD/CFV.
Quote:>For this reason, participating in "straw" votes is a waste of
>bandwidth since they have no benefit output other than contributing to
Wrong. They let would-be RFD posters like myself know whether or not the
membership supports the proposal. They're *informal* and *nonbinding*, but
that doesn't make them unnecessary.
Quote:>If you desire to vote, then wait for the vote which will
>count -- if it gets that far.
Like I said, ignore straw polls at your own risk.
Suppose the readership of comp.os.linux.help was generally opposed to a
split, but more of those who favor a split respond to the straw poll
assuming it's useless and waiting instead for the "real" vote. Then when
the RFD and CFV are posted and the votes are counted it turn out that the
net public was more in favor of the split than the readership. Oops. Maybe
those who opposed the proposal *should* have voted in the straw poll.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Workstation Support