pricelessware Infighting

[Susan Bugher]

Omar© <[email protected]> says in

Hi RL,

I'm not sure why you feel the vote to move the Pricelessware site needs
so *much* discussion. This does not seem to be the road to peace. . .

But a proper binding vote would need to have at least certain
percentage of the whole group to participe, vote for motion,
move to discussions, and then the vote and also a lot of clear
details, and you know for a fact that we didn't have any of
those ever in this group. We do vote to express our opinion,
though. Years ago Gena wanted to put up a site and contribute
to the participants here so she asked for opinions by
conducting a poll or a vote, fair enough; So did Susan,
although she had every right to just not ask us, this is a
fact, right? Just like all the wonderful contributors who are
contrubuting to the PL-home site now, we all appricate the
efforts and they have choosen to contribute, they don't need
to have anyone's approval or to vote for them, either; they
can just start contrubuting anytime anyway they like to (but
if they want to ask for opinions from this group I am guessing
that it would also be welcomed).




hmmm.... not really...to help...you will really need to answer
my question as to who has the power or right to say that it
represents *all* the participants here and have a binding
power. I really don't understand why you think that way.

I do. . .

Pricelessware is. . .

"The best of the best in Windows© Freeware
as determined by the readers of alt.comp.freeware"

"The Pricelessware List reflects the programs favored by participants in
the alt.comp.freeware newsgroup"

Last year only 100 people voted in the PL2004 selection process (up
significantly from the year before).

Should we abolish the Pricelessware List - by your rules it is clearly
not a *legitimate* expression of the will of the alt.comp.freeware
newsgroup.

If on second thought a voter turnout of less than 100 percent is
acceptable. . .

Let's see how the vote to move the PL site compares to the PL2004 vote:

moving the PL site:
total voters: 51
votes in favor: 34 (67 percent)

2004 Pricelessware List
total voters: 100
total winners: 262

votes in favor of a PW program: 34 votes or more:
17 programs

votes in favor of a PW program: 67 percent or more:
3 programs

IOW - the vote in favor of moving the PL site was more *legitimate* than
the selection of 245 of the 262 programs on PL2004.

*Any* ACF participant can create a web page listing PW winners - that's
not an issue. . . but. . . We do need one set of rules for selecting
the Pricelessware List, one set of nominations, etc. etc.

Garrett said he would not seek to replace me as point person for the
PL2005 selection process - Discussion of "da rules" for this year will
begin soon.

till then. . .

Let's have fun... you know, I though we were just discussing,
not arguing, if you think I am arguing with you, I rather
not...let's talk about freeware freeware freeware....

Good idea.

Susan

 

[Stan Weiss]

Hi RL,

I'm not sure why you feel the vote to move the Pricelessware site needs
so *much* discussion. This does not seem to be the road to peace. . .


I do. . .

So this vote has put you in charge of and unmoderated group? I did not
see where the vote was for group lead.

 

[R. L.]

moving the PL site:
total voters: 51
votes in favor: 34 (67 percent)

2004 Pricelessware List
total voters: 100
total winners: 262

votes in favor of a PW program: 34 votes or more:
17 programs

votes in favor of a PW program: 67 percent or more:
3 programs

IOW - the vote in favor of moving the PL site was more
*legitimate* than the selection of 245 of the 262 programs
on PL2004.

No, Susan, I guess I was misunderstood. I didn't mean the no.
of voters who vote for a vs. b i.e., 34/51. I mean the ones
who actually voted vs. those that didn't even actually voted
but still be considered as participants (i.e., 51/100). In
fact, the figure you gave helps, although, 100 is a
conservative numbers; we have more subscrbers in this group
that that. Among the 100 participants who actaully cared for
the PL list, actually 50% who had expressed their opinion on
the site issue. Firstly, how can only 50 people of us decide
for all the 100 people (not to mentioned there could be even
more). Second, even worse, how could the decision of 34 people
be a good representative of 100+ people? But fair enough, you
did ask for the opinion and that was fine and whatever site it
is and it was, as far as it serve the group it is nice, isn't
it? There is good that we have more sites to visit.

I have no doubt that you should be the point person for the
vote and I thought you and Garrett had sorted this out a while
ago already in a post as far as I remember. So, we have no
problem here. Some people might not have gotten this fact
(they might not have read that post) and think that you and
Garrett were "fighting" to conduct the vote, but I know that
is not true. Anyhow, thank you for all the work again, Susan,
I think you have been doing a wonderful job and are full of
passion with it And I am looking forward for the
Pricelessware event (you know, I was lurking last year but I
still definitely made sure I came in to vote for my favourite
programs :-D )



--
RL
Unofficial Adaware Updater (+other goodies)
http://home.earthlink.net/~ringomei/page2.html
********************************
Pricelessware voting annual results and information:
http://www.pricelessware.org,
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org,
http://www.earths-ocular.com/mirror/www.pricelesswarehome.org/

 

[R.L.]

No, Susan, I guess I was misunderstood. I didn't mean the no.
of voters who vote for a vs. b i.e., 34/51. I mean the ones
who actually voted vs. those that didn't even actually voted
but still be considered as participants (i.e., 51/100). In
fact, the figure you gave helps, although, 100 is a
conservative numbers; we have more subscrbers in this group

that that. Among the 100 participants who actaully cared for

the PL list, actually 50% who had expressed their opinion on
the site issue. Firstly, how can only 50 people of us decide
for all the 100 people (not to mentioned there could be even
more). Second, even worse, how could the decision of 34 people
be a good representative of 100+ people? But fair enough, you
did ask for the opinion and that was fine and whatever site it
is and it was, as far as it serve the group it is nice, isn't
it? There is good that we have more sites to visit.

I have no doubt that you should be the point person for the
vote and I thought you and Garrett had sorted this out a while
ago already in a post as far as I remember. So, we have no
problem here. Some people might not have gotten this fact
(they might not have read that post) and think that you and
Garrett were "fighting" to conduct the vote, but I know that
is not true. Anyhow, thank you for all the work again, Susan, >I think you have been doing a wonderful job and are full of
passion with it And I am looking forward for the
Pricelessware event (you know, I was lurking last year but I
still definitely made sure I came in to vote for my favourite
programs :-D )

Shut The **** Up R.L. ,or shall we call you Al Gore?

 

[REM]

So this vote has put you in charge of and unmoderated group? I did not
see where the vote was for group lead.

No one is in charge of an unmoderated group Stan.

I think there might be difficulty in separating the discussion, comments,
suggestions, tabulation of voting, and basically just presenting these points in
a structured format to the members of ACF who care to participate in the
Pricelessware discussions within this group.

Pricelessware is a reflection of ACF commentary about Pricelesswares.

ACF is not a reflection of Pricelessware threads concerning ACF.

ACF is an unmoderated group in which many interests are announced and discussed.
PL is simply one of the outstanding volunteer group projects within ACF.

 

[* ProteanThread *]

No, Susan, I guess I was misunderstood. I didn't mean the no.
of voters who vote for a vs. b i.e., 34/51. I mean the ones
who actually voted vs. those that didn't even actually voted
but still be considered as participants (i.e., 51/100). In
fact, the figure you gave helps, although, 100 is a
conservative numbers; we have more subscrbers in this group
that that. Among the 100 participants who actaully cared for
the PL list, actually 50% who had expressed their opinion on
the site issue. Firstly, how can only 50 people of us decide
for all the 100 people (not to mentioned there could be even
more). Second, even worse, how could the decision of 34 people
be a good representative of 100+ people? But fair enough, you
did ask for the opinion and that was fine and whatever site it
is and it was, as far as it serve the group it is nice, isn't
it? There is good that we have more sites to visit.

I have no doubt that you should be the point person for the
vote and I thought you and Garrett had sorted this out a while
ago already in a post as far as I remember. So, we have no
problem here. Some people might not have gotten this fact
(they might not have read that post) and think that you and
Garrett were "fighting" to conduct the vote, but I know that
is not true. Anyhow, thank you for all the work again, Susan,
I think you have been doing a wonderful job and are full of
passion with it And I am looking forward for the
Pricelessware event (you know, I was lurking last year but I
still definitely made sure I came in to vote for my favourite
programs :-D )



--
RL
Unofficial Adaware Updater (+other goodies)
http://home.earthlink.net/~ringomei/page2.html
********************************
Pricelessware voting annual results and information:
http://www.pricelessware.org,
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org,
http://www.earths-ocular.com/mirror/www.pricelesswarehome.org/

What about the people who could careless that don't vote?

 

[burnr]

(e-mail address removed) (* ProteanThread *) wrote in

What about the people who could careless that don't vote?

What about them? If you don't want to vote...don't. Simple!

 

[Vic Dura]

No one is in charge of an unmoderated group Stan.

I think there might be difficulty in separating the discussion, comments,
suggestions, tabulation of voting, and basically just presenting these points in
a structured format to the members of ACF who care to participate in the
Pricelessware discussions within this group.

Pricelessware is a reflection of ACF commentary about Pricelesswares.

ACF is not a reflection of Pricelessware threads concerning ACF.

ACF is an unmoderated group in which many interests are announced and discussed.
PL is simply one of the outstanding volunteer group projects within ACF.

Good cogent summary REM.