On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:02:26 +1100, Christian Gerzner
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

< Length noise and diatribe snipped >

Below was in the post in which you replied but did not address.
It was, and will be, the ISSUE, when it comes to VOTING, on anything
related to this or any other List.  That is the ENTIRE issue over
Chuck's behavior and those of others like yourself defending the
indefensible.  If there had been a STATEMENT of what is actually
being voted, a DISCUSSION before a vote was taken, then a simple
phone call to Jeff (by Chuck or me) would have indicated it was an
accidental removal of the membership "confirmation" check because
of power cable and equipment change, and a simple turn of a switch
would have restored it to the CURRENT state, which was the ORIGINAL
and ongoing state of the Scuba-SE list.

THEN, if there is any vote to be taken, the statement would have
been to REMOVE the membership check of not, and NOT a question of
"private" vs "public", because in either case, it would have been
PUBLIC.  (I seriously doubt if anyone wants to REMOVE the "post by
membership only" status of the List.  EXCEPT perhaps Hahaha who
would be perfectly entitled to join the list to vote.  :-))


If you, Mike Levy, Ken Smith, or anyone else who wants to contribute
to the betterment of this List, let's hear your opinion on this
and how it should be done IN THE FUTURE.  If you don't have anything
of substance to say about it, then just STFU:


>Speaking of voting, I would be all for establishing an ORDERLY voting
>process to decide matters that are of concern to the readership of
>Scuba-SE.
>
>The process would involve, MINIMALLY,
>
>1.  A statement of the issue, and what the vote is about.
>2.  A DISCUSSION period before the voting starts.
>3.  A clear period (and deadline) for the voting itself.
>4.  A count of votes.
>
>BEFORE any action is taken.
>
>Which of those steps has Chuck followed?  If what actually happened
>is not a MOCKERY of the VOTING PROCESS, I don't know what it is.

-- Bob.