S
Susan Bugher
If there are any $$$-ware programs on the nominations list please post
the name of the program *now*. TIA
Some PL2004 nominations are controversial.
Please post the names of programs you feel are unsuitable for the
Pricelessware list - and list the grounds for your objection: Spyware,
Adware, Trialware etc. etc.
Rather than have an overly prolonged discussion I think we should have
ballots for: acceptable and not acceptable. These would be in addition
to the usual ballot where we vote *for* a program.
If someone posts an objection to a program that program will be put on
the acceptable/ not acceptable ballots.
Those two ballots will be used to determine if a program is *eligible*
for the Pricelessware list - a majority for *unacceptable* would be
cause for removal from further consideration.
I suggest two ballots to simplify counting the vote. The seconding of
carryover nominations went well and this would be a similar procedure.
If a program is acceptable leave it on the acceptable ballot. If a
program is unacceptable leave it on the not acceptable ballot.
Comments?
Susan
--
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
the name of the program *now*. TIA
Some PL2004 nominations are controversial.
Please post the names of programs you feel are unsuitable for the
Pricelessware list - and list the grounds for your objection: Spyware,
Adware, Trialware etc. etc.
Rather than have an overly prolonged discussion I think we should have
ballots for: acceptable and not acceptable. These would be in addition
to the usual ballot where we vote *for* a program.
If someone posts an objection to a program that program will be put on
the acceptable/ not acceptable ballots.
Those two ballots will be used to determine if a program is *eligible*
for the Pricelessware list - a majority for *unacceptable* would be
cause for removal from further consideration.
I suggest two ballots to simplify counting the vote. The seconding of
carryover nominations went well and this would be a similar procedure.
If a program is acceptable leave it on the acceptable ballot. If a
program is unacceptable leave it on the not acceptable ballot.
Comments?
Susan
--
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html