Dave Kristofferson writes:
>I am willing to compromise on Fote's position of NO >= 40 which was the
>least bothersome in my mind unless there are other postings supporting
>the NO > YES > 80 limit proposed earlier.
I would like to propose (((YES - NO) > 40) AND (YES > 80)); with the
call for votes to include some statement to the effect of:
"Vote YES if you intend to use this group, don't vote at all if you do
not intend to use this group, and only vote NO if you think that
creation of this group would be actively harmful."
This would reduce to Dave Kristofferson's initial proposal if there
are 0 NO votes. It differs from Dave Kristofferson's second proposal
in that it is somewhat easier to block the creation of a group;
emphasis on 'somewhat'. The only way an 80 vote mandate would be overturned
is if 40 people actively think the group is a bad idea. I think this
would happen extremely rarely, and would be so striking if it did that
notice should be taken. I suspect that my proposal and Dave
Kristofferson's first and second proposals would be identical in
practice. I think Fote's proposal would make it much too easy to
create a group. As a result, I will vote as follows:
(1) >= 80 YES, NO irrelevant --------- I would vote YES
(2) >= 80 YES & YES > NO ------------- I would vote YES
(3) >= 80 YES & YES - NO > 40 -------- I would vote YES
(4) YES - NO > 50 -------------------- I would vote NO
--
David Steffen
Department of Cell Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston TX 77030
Telephone = (713) 798-6655, FAX = (713) 790-0545
Internet = steffen at bcm.tmc.edu
