[PL] PL2005 General Discussion

[Susan Bugher]

FYI - Votes from the first few ballots have been posted:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2005/2005PL-Nominations.php

Irfanview and Firefox are tied.

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

Copied from another thread. Please do *NOT* post comments in VOTING
threads. TIA

Susan (response later)

 

[jo]

Please do *NOT* post comments in VOTING
threads. TIA

It was not me.

It was my evil twin.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Copied from another thread. Please do *NOT* post comments in VOTING
threads. TIA

NOTE: the vote for each app can be retrieved by Googling the voting
thread - a "non-vote" or "duplicate" vote dirties the data.

It was not clear to me if your post was a *vote* for Free Agent. I
marked it as a "non-vote". If you do wish to vote for Free Agent please
cast *another* ballot - *without* comments please. . .

In general, program version(s) are updated if a newer version comes out
during the Pricelessware selection process. Program versions are shown
in the online descriptions.

They are stored adjacent to the URL for downloading - which may be the
first and/or second and/or third link in a description. IOW - showing
the version(s) on the ballot would require a major revision in the
database.

Last freeware versions generally do not change. Free Agent is an
*exception* in that it was changed to a LFW version without (IIRC) a
description post. The change *is* documented in ACF posts but the
information might be a bit hard to dig out.

Another point - I posted *new* descriptions - there is nothing in
Google's ACF archive to show the nominated version(s) of the PL2004
programs. Perhaps next year all program descriptions should be posted
(that would take a considerable amount of bandwidth).

Comments? Suggestions?

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

It was not me.

It was my evil twin.

I thought it might be. She's *supposed* to be delivering the door prize
to Buzzy.

Susan

 

[omega]

If I see a FA 1.21 user give it a vote, I will consider that a -very-
worthy vote in favor. As now, I mostly expect its votes to come from other
corridors:

o FA 1.93/2.0 users in mode of popularity vote, for their own crippled
version, disregarding the criteria for PL eligibility...

o Thunderbird (etc) users voting for FA because it brings back memories of
the good old days, before BG lurched in to take all the poker chips, when
the standard net apps distributed were Netscape, WSftp, Eudora, FA...

o Users of payware Agent voting for "their party candidate...."

Er... as per earlier discussions, I think the build should be specified
here.

If FA makes enough votes to where the numbers appear to make it a high
candidate for the final Pricelessware list, then we have the post-vote
discussion period, to weed things out. It can be re-emphasized then
exactly which product can be supported for the PL: FA 1.21.

 

[omega]

I thought it might be. She's *supposed* to be delivering the door prize
to Buzzy.

Hey, I'm the good twin! Jo made more comments about mothers at large on
the internet than I ever did.

 

[jo]

She's *supposed* to be delivering the door prize
to Buzzy.

She's still sulking about the medal...

 

[omega]

She's still sulking about the medal...

True, and that's why I didn't feel the least guilt about not completing
the delivery to Buzzy for his prize. Besides, I felt it my duty to pursue
a little quality control. That is, how could I ensure it was good, unless
I ate it myself? My compliments to the baker, btw.

 

[jo]

It was not clear to me if your post was a *vote* for Free Agent. I
marked it as a "non-vote". If you do wish to vote for Free Agent please
cast *another* ballot - *without* comments please. . .

I might be inclined to vote for FA 1.21 as a vote for nostalgiaware; it
is a seriously good usenet client for those who accept its limitations.
I would never vote for FA as currently bundled.

Comments? Suggestions?

Including FA in the voting process without specifying build is not a
good idea.

 

[jo]

Jo made more comments about mothers at large on
the internet than I ever did.

Nonsense.

It's just my mum is older than your mum.

 

[Susan Bugher]

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2005/2005PL-Nominations.php

Updated vote counts are online. (1500+ votes to date)

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

Updated vote counts are online. (1500+ votes to date)

As an aid to vote counting I've uploaded a text file. I'll upload
revisions as more ballots are counted.

The list is sorted by email addresses. An address *without* a program is
used to indicate a "vote" that was not counted - IOW - a *non-vote* or a
*duplicate* vote. See:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/ftp/PL2005VoteCount.txt

If your votes don't appear on the list in a reasonable length of time do
NOT *repost* your ballot. Post in *this* thread and I'll look for your
ballots on another server. TIA

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

If I see a FA 1.21 user give it a vote, I will consider that a -very-
worthy vote in favor. As now, I mostly expect its votes to come from other
corridors:

o FA 1.93/2.0 users in mode of popularity vote, for their own crippled
version, disregarding the criteria for PL eligibility...

o Thunderbird (etc) users voting for FA because it brings back memories of
the good old days, before BG lurched in to take all the poker chips, when
the standard net apps distributed were Netscape, WSftp, Eudora, FA...

o Users of payware Agent voting for "their party candidate...."


If FA makes enough votes to where the numbers appear to make it a high
candidate for the final Pricelessware list, then we have the post-vote
discussion period, to weed things out. It can be re-emphasized then
exactly which product can be supported for the PL: FA 1.21.

We *nominated* the LFW of Free Agent. People vote for programs for many
reasons (just as they vote for candidates in governmental elections for
many reasons). IMO *reasons* are not and should not be subject to scrutiny.

I think we can do a better job of *informing* voters about the programs
on the ballot. The majority of programs are "current non-beta versions".
ISTM that labeling programs on the ballot that *aren't* would be helpful
next year.

Susan

 

[omega]

We *nominated* the LFW of Free Agent. People vote for programs for many
reasons (just as they vote for candidates in governmental elections for
many reasons). IMO *reasons* are not and should not be subject to scrutiny.

[...]

FA is a special and unusual case, and that's why it brought forth hard
scrutiny and long discussion. The reasons for voting FA do matter in this
special Ware case -- if people are voting for something very different
from the specific product which is eligible for the PL.

It might turn out that it does not end with enough votes against the
freeware modern usenet clients to where further hassle will be needed
in the matter of discussing merit for PL. But if it does, then I consider
it very appropriate to assess -what- it was people believed they were
casting votes for.

 

[omega]

Updated vote counts are online.

Way neato, thanks!

Get to sit in the stands, like for a sports event, and watch the scorecard
action from inning to inning.

 

[Susan Bugher]

We *nominated* the LFW of Free Agent. People vote for programs for many
reasons (just as they vote for candidates in governmental elections for
many reasons). IMO *reasons* are not and should not be subject to scrutiny.

[...]

FA is a special and unusual case, and that's why it brought forth hard
scrutiny and long discussion. The reasons for voting FA do matter in this
special Ware case -- if people are voting for something very different
from the specific product which is eligible for the PL.

IMO it's appropriate to discuss the version that was voted on. If
someone would like to withdraw their vote as a result of that discussion
they can say so. If enough people want to withdraw their votes an app
can be "unselected" from the preliminary list.

Susan

 

[omega]

Subject: Re: [PL] PL2005 PROGRAM BALLOT
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:10:50 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

By the way, I suggest reposting the Ballot since it does not
seem to have appeared in Google groups acf yet although I
found a copy tacked onto the end of one of the posts:

The post with the final vote will show the programs. I don't think it's
absolutely necessary to have a copy of the ballot in the Google archive.

I'd like to request that you reconsider, about doing a repost. I don't
mean for the sake of the Google archive. I mean for the sake of those
having to use Google for voting. Perhaps they are away from their own
machine (eg, visiting friends, or at work).

I've checked just now, and can confirm that the ballot post
<[email protected]> never made it to groups.google.com.

(It did make it over to groups-beta.google.com, but I don't know how
usable, or how used, the beta version of the google interface might be.)

I have put a copy in the ACF wiki for reference:

http://www.markcarter.me.uk/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SelectionProcess

Good for archive. But for those who need to vote via Google, then they
wouldn't have a particular message for the reply-to, with the threading,
and the subject & the prog list, pre-filled.

On the vote tally, where you are trying to avoid non-vote listings of
programs...well, for this special measure to compensate for the first
fail in propagation to Google...can make a note to subtract one from
everything, for the count, right?

 

[John Fitzsimons]

jo wrote:

If I see a FA 1.21 user give it a vote, I will consider that a -very-
worthy vote in favor. As now, I mostly expect its votes to come from other
corridors:

< snip >

There are a number of programs I would consider "priceless" but that I
currently don't use. Are you saying that my vote on these programs
should be "invalid" ? Or are you saying that my vote is only invalid
if I vote for Free Agent 1.21 ?

Where does it say in the voting rules that one must be currently using
a freeware program to vote for it ?

Regards, John.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I'd like to request that you reconsider, about doing a repost.

I've uploaded text files containing the ballots to the PWH ftp directory:

http://ftp.pricelesswarehome.org/

http://ftp.pricelesswarehome.org/PL2005ProgramBallot.txt
http://ftp.pricelesswarehome.org/PL2005WareBallot.txt

the program ballot is also here:

http://www.markcarter.me.uk/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SelectionProcess

*If* a few people post that it would be a great help to them to have the
program ballot *reposted* I will. I don't have complete faith that
Google would archive the second post. (Insanity is doing the same thing
a second time and expecting different results>)

On the vote tally, where you are trying to avoid non-vote listings of
programs...

(SNIP)

re checking:

As I posted earlier today, the ftp directory now has a file showing the
votes that have been cast (which I will update as additional votes are
posted). Each individual should check to be sure *their* votes are
recorded properly.

I uploaded a file with the program ballot - I'll upload one for the ware
ballot soon. The final versions of those files will be a complete record
of the PL2005 vote.

Susan