[PL] 2004 VOTE DISCUSSION

[Spacey Spade]

We all contribute in one way or another, more or less, but do you
think the policy of Pricelessware list should be decided by only the
one, or the few, who has put most work in it?

[snip]

I would prefer ACF make choices as a group, and having a vote on
issues seems to be the way to do this. I don't think I have the Luxury
of having a choice in this decision, because I believe that if Susan
does not like the end result, she will no longer do the site. I
certainly wouldn't want her to do something she doesn't like. I would
be willing to help if the effort was split up, but not to take on the
whole as she has done.

Spacey

 

[Spacey Spade]

Maybe we should vote on the purpose and policy of the Pricelessware
list?

First we could formulate the alternatives:

Let's examine the *present* purpose and policy before we do that.

http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm

<q>
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 ; it is not an exhaustive list of the
best available Freeware.
</q>

KEY POINTS IN THE ABOVE:

1. The best of the best
2. the programs favored by participant in alt.comp.freeware
3. it is not an exhaustive list

We determine *favored* programs by a vote. We determine the *best of the
best* in the selection process that follows the vote. That is also when
we determine how *exhaustive* the list will be.

Genna said that originally the PL had 100 programs.

IMO it should just be the top 10 programs . . .

Seriously, IMO a target of 200-300 programs is about right. I favor the
low end of that range. PL2004 would be much less *exhaustive* if it
contained only 100 programs. (This year we voted on 412 programs in 197
subcategories and selected 262 programs in 167 subcategories.)

Irfanview (87 votes) is the the *most* favored and best of the best of
all programs on the list. XnView (25 votes) has been voted one of the
most favored and one of the best of the best (in the top 10 percent).

Clearly the best of the best and the most favored program goals are
contradictory *if* we apply them within subcategories. I favor using the
vote as the primary means of determining the best of the best.

Now let's look at your alternatives:
[snip]

Susan

Perhaps we could have the best of both worlds:

Site 1: Pricelessware - the site of the most popular programs

Site 2: To Be Named - the site of the best programs for categories not
included in the Pricelessware site.
Voting details:

OR

Nominate a few charters and weed them until 2 are left, then have a vote
on the charter of the Pricelessware site.

Spacey

--
char·ter ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chärtr)
n.
A document issued by a sovereign, legislature, or other authority,
creating a public or private corporation, such as a city, college, or
bank, and defining its privileges and purposes.

The legislature would be ACF, ofcourse.

 

[omega]

I haven't tracked Roger's posts, but Jason and I have both participated
very actively in the discussions. Are you saying that if I don't eg
dial into my 15k connection to track web links, that I should leave off
posting to PL threads?

[...]

The greatest part of the work is preparing the PL program descriptions.
That part of the work can and IMO *should* be done by others.

The first real weight should fall upon the nominator. To have a bunch of
people just lazily say, "I like program X and I nominate it," then leave
all the responsibility for the nomination to others is irresponsible. Is
there a mechanism that might work? A "preliminary nominations" page vs a
"completed nominations" page? Where those who have interest in a candidate
program, especially its nominator, they must take the initiative to supply
the necessary information. Required to get something moved to the completed
nominations page. And their failure to do that will just leave it only on
the "preliminary nominations" page, not eligible for voting.

[...]

It's a case of put your money where your mouth is - don't make or agree
to a suggestion if you are not willing to put forth some effort.
[...]
I have already asked for comments on the PL selection process. Speak up
everybody.

Do these two excerpts work together?

I know I've snipped a lot, but this thread turn has left me confused.

I am not to ask questions about nature of PL goals, nor express any opinions
about procedures, unless I put forth ________ (undefined) effort ?

.. . .

Sorry to come off all thin-skinned today, but really, I'd appreciate some
clarification. I can leave off the discussion, just as easily.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I haven't tracked Roger's posts, but Jason and I have both participated
very actively in the discussions. Are you saying that if I don't eg
dial into my 15k connection to track web links, that I should leave off
posting to PL threads?

Hey, I didn't say that - that was Spacey on one of his guilt trips -
*he* didn't feel entitled to comment because etc. . . .

The first real weight should fall upon the nominator. To have a bunch of
people just lazily say, "I like program X and I nominate it," then leave
all the responsibility for the nomination to others is irresponsible. Is
there a mechanism that might work? A "preliminary nominations" page vs a
"completed nominations" page? Where those who have interest in a candidate
program, especially its nominator, they must take the initiative to supply
the necessary information. Required to get something moved to the completed
nominations page. And their failure to do that will just leave it only on
the "preliminary nominations" page, not eligible for voting.

IMO it would help to have the program descriptions submitted before
nominations open. We could shorten the time between the start of
nominations and the program discussion period - maybe even start both at
the same time. . .

ISTM there should be a way to do this - have been thinking about it . . .

Do these two excerpts work together?

NO!!!

The first comment was about suggestions for the site that involve more
*WORK*: please add these 6 additional kinds of cross index pages to the
PL programs etc. etc. - I say phooey to that - I ain't got time - *you*
add them if you think they're such a wonderful idea . . .

The second comment is about plans and goals - those are group decisions
- the more discussion the better.

Sorry to come off all thin-skinned today, but really, I'd appreciate some
clarification. I can leave off the discussion, just as easily.

*Please* don't do that.

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

 

[Spacey Spade]

[snip]

In all seriousness, the workload needs to be shared to ensure the future
of the Pricelessware List. [snip]

I personally don't feel I deserve to say what should be of the
Pricelessware site because I only take a small part, while Susan does
all the work.

I strongly disagree. IMO decisions about the Pricelessware site should
be made by the group. OTOH I reserve the right to decide if I am willing
to do additional work to *implement* a decision.

It's a case of put your money where your mouth is - don't make or agree
to a suggestion if you are not willing to put forth some effort.

[snip]

I would be willing to make some web pages for "the best freeware in
niche categories", or something to that extent.

The voting details would be as I've described:

<quote summary>
Some programs are specialized, and even though they may be the best of
the best at their task, they do not have a large user base because only
a minority of people use such program categories. For example an FTP
server as opposed to an email client, which most everyone uses. For
example all the small single purpose apps.

What can be done in the future is to add program categories to the
voting:

LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
Remove all software categories that you do not use.

....

LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.

....

So now we can grade votes on percentages, which would be a lot more
meaningful when it comes to grading programs in "niche categories".

This would answer the questions:
- Of the people who use GraphicsConverters, what percentage find
Irfanview to be the best (or among the best in case they vote for more
than one GC).
- Of the people who use a custom ProgramLauncher, what percentage use
RUNit?

*********An example vote:*********

LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
Remove all software categories that you do not use.
----------------------
FtpServer
GraphicsConverter
GraphicsEditor
GraphicsViewer

LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
----------------------
CesarFTP
XnViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsEditor
IrfanViewAsGraphicsViewer
**********************************

</quote summary>

Spacey

 

[Spacey Spade]

Hey, I didn't say that - that was Spacey on one of his guilt trips -
*he* didn't feel entitled to comment because etc. . . .

[snip]

The "guilt" was a facade for my own sense of morality. I do not require
others to share my morality, but would like them to respect it.

I strive to love everyone. My sense of humor may be a bit wicked
sometimes...

--
I'm Yoda, I'm a soldja!
I'll mold ya, then fold ya!
I THOUGHT I TOLD YA!

From the Star Wars Gangsta Rap:
http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/content/atom_1403

 

[Susan Bugher]

I would be willing to make some web pages for "the best freeware in
niche categories", or something to that extent.

Good idea. IMO something in addition to the PL is needed.

but . . .

The 2004 nomination pages are the second set of 2004 pages on the
Pricelessware site. Karen just suggested having pre-nomination pages for
PL2005 - that seems like a good idea too.

IMO three sets is plenty . . .

Maybe combine your idea and hers - then the *third* set of pages could
be sort of a farm club for the Pricelessware pages - a place to list
niche programs and runners-up on PL2004 - add new programs during the
year if there is support for them - that could prequalify them for
PL2005 nomination (which would get rid of shareware nominations etc.).

and . . .

The descriptions for PL2005 nominations would be done *before*
nominations start. I like it.

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

 

[jason]

Susan Bugher <[email protected]>:

The first real weight should fall upon the nominator. To have a bunch
of people just lazily say, "I like program X and I nominate it," then
leave all the responsibility for the nomination to others is
irresponsible.

I agree. A number of people routinely cut and run...They nominate a
program, then disappear, ignoring all pleas for descriptions or
clarifications. So anything that enforces the continuing involvement of
the nominators is vital. Granted, that doesn't address the issue of
maintaining program descriptions throughout the year, but it does address
the bulk of the work, which is what happens during the annual elections.

Is there a mechanism that might work? A "preliminary
nominations" page vs a "completed nominations" page? Where those who
have interest in a candidate program, especially its nominator, they
must take the initiative to supply the necessary information. Required
to get something moved to the completed nominations page. And their
failure to do that will just leave it only on the "preliminary
nominations" page, not eligible for voting.

The devil is always in the details, but on the surface, that sounds like
an excellent idea.

 

[omega]

[snipping a suggested mechanism which would be messy as compared with
the following]

IMO it would help to have the program descriptions submitted before
nominations open.

Submitting a completed application first, that's how nearly everything
in the real world works. Eek, try to visualize it otherwise. Chaos.

If one applies for a job and skips putting in job history, it doesn't
befall the hiring committee to do that. Or if you want to enter your
pooch into a dog pageant, it's up to you to put in the pedigree and
other information they want. Or if a sw author submits his/her program
to a site, and puts not homepage links nor description...

We could shorten the time between the start of nominations and the
program discussion period - maybe even start both at the same time. . .

It was relatively quiet during nominations, and it would be fruitful to
get more discussion time in at that earlier stage.

ISTM there should be a way to do this - have been thinking about it . . .

The descriptions for PL2005 nominations would be done *before*
nominations start. I like it.

Me too!

For those who don't bother to supply a program description that is
complete, then, well, it's like with submitting applications in the
real world. It means that no one sincerely cared enough to get that
puppy into the pageant.

 

[Spacey Spade]

Good idea. IMO something in addition to the PL is needed.

but . . .

The 2004 nomination pages are the second set of 2004 pages on the
Pricelessware site. Karen just suggested having pre-nomination pages for
PL2005 - that seems like a good idea too.

IMO three sets is plenty . . .

Maybe combine your idea and hers - then the *third* set of pages could
be sort of a farm club for the Pricelessware pages - a place to list
niche programs and runners-up on PL2004

The pages I would put forth would have only those programs that made the
cut according to the voting procedures I described:

<quote summary>
Some programs are specialized, and even though they may be the best of
the best at their task, they do not have a large user base because only
a minority of people use such program categories. For example an FTP
server as opposed to an email client, which most everyone uses. For
example all the small single purpose apps.

What can be done in the future is to add program categories to the
voting:

LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
Remove all software categories that you do not use.

....

LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.

....

So now we can grade votes on percentages, which would be a lot more
meaningful when it comes to grading programs in "niche categories".

This would answer the questions:
- Of the people who use GraphicsConverters, what percentage find
Irfanview to be the best (or among the best in case they vote for more
than one GC).
- Of the people who use a custom ProgramLauncher, what percentage use
RUNit?

*********An example vote:*********

LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
Remove all software categories that you do not use.
----------------------
FtpServer
GraphicsConverter
GraphicsEditor
GraphicsViewer

LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
----------------------
CesarFTP
XnViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsEditor
IrfanViewAsGraphicsViewer
**********************************

- add new programs during the
year if there is support for them - that could prequalify them for
PL2005 nomination (which would get rid of shareware nominations etc.).

and . . .

The descriptions for PL2005 nominations would be done *before*
nominations start. I like it.

The descriptions could easily grow into 1000+ programs, so I don't think
this is a good idea, just because of the workload involved. I think
current procedures are fine, with the few changes in the voting.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

As the discussion continues I feel more and more alienated towards
the group.
I came to the group some years ago looking for freeware and was
directed to pricelessware. There I found several newsreaders or
file managers or whatever. I tried this one and discarded it, so I
tried that one, until I found the one that suited my needs.
The discussion running at the moment is heading towards a 'cup
winner' in each catagory, which if this had been the case in the
past I would never have tried half the programs that I now use.

I'm surprised you feel alienated. One bitter poster has strongly
implied that Susan is going to do what she wants with the PL no
matter what we think, but all her statements and actions give clear
evidence that nothing could be further from the truth. And there are
currently cases being made on both 'sides' of the issue, with quite a
few suggestions that are in between the extremes of an exhaustive
list of freeware and a list of 'cup winners' in each category.

Even if the 2005 PL somehow had only a single listing in each
category (which I think is rather unlikely to happen), the
nominations page will still be available. Someone like you who did
not want only to see the best of the best but also a longer list of
apps considered very good by members of a.c.f would likely try the PL
entry first. But if it did not suit, the others would also be
available, with descriptions and links. The "try several and discard
the ones that don't suit you" method would still be pretty easy to
use by looking at pricelessware.org, no matter how all this shakes
out.

 

[Spacey Spade]

Susan Bugher <[email protected]>: [snip]

[...]
The greatest part of the work is preparing the PL program descriptions.
That part of the work can and IMO *should* be done by others.

The first real weight should fall upon the nominator. To have a bunch of
people just lazily say, "I like program X and I nominate it," then leave
all the responsibility for the nomination to others is irresponsible. Is
there a mechanism that might work? A "preliminary nominations" page vs a
"completed nominations" page? Where those who have interest in a candidate
program, especially its nominator, they must take the initiative to supply
the necessary information. Required to get something moved to the completed
nominations page. And their failure to do that will just leave it only on
the "preliminary nominations" page, not eligible for voting.

[snip]

I think that during the nominations, the instructions posted to have
complete descriptions will be clear. The responsibility to post
complete and accurate descriptions should be up to the nominators. The
hand holding or guidance to correct nominations lacking information
should come from the altruism of other A.C.F.ers. Correcting
information in the descriptions should also be the responsibility of all
ACF-ers. The person(s) putting stuff on the site already have their
hands full. This is why I don't like the "preliminary nominations" part
of your idea. The rest is good.

Spacey

ps.
I know you'd like to help, I would never question that. Only you can
decide how (and in my case, determine if the help is wanted).

 

[omega]

What can be done in the future is to add program categories to the
voting:

LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
Remove all software categories that you do not use.

...

LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.

...

So now we can grade votes on percentages, which would be a lot more
meaningful when it comes to grading programs in "niche categories".

This would answer the questions:
- Of the people who use GraphicsConverters, what percentage find
Irfanview to be the best (or among the best in case they vote for more
than one GC).
- Of the people who use a custom ProgramLauncher, what percentage use
RUNit?

*********An example vote:*********

LEAVE ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE.
Remove all software categories that you do not use.
----------------------
FtpServer
GraphicsConverter
GraphicsEditor
GraphicsViewer

LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
----------------------
CesarFTP
XnViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsEditor
IrfanViewAsGraphicsViewer
**********************************

</quote summary>

Spacey, I'm having a daydream, based on this, but then off to a rather
different track. That ACF also works on - separate from PL (the most
priceless programs) - a "FAQ."

Some of the best sources of information on certain subjects are many times
a large newsgroup FAQ - a compilation of the knowledge of that newsgroup.

To begin the project primarily within the group, until forms take shape.
Make it a later stage to figure out how to resolve the web presence (and
administrative labor) for such a FAQ.

And that working towards such a FAQ, we do go towards the more
comprehensive. What is the best freeware FTP server? What are the top
seven most favored email clients? What are the best /three/ registry
editors? (*g*) A FAQ which would be very structured...and fairly full.

One thing I like about the daydream, is that it would give ACF something
to do when PL discussions are over. A way to continue focusing on freeware,
in a non-repetitious way. And ideally, with the end result of compiling our
collective experiences into a worthy informational document. (A dynamic
document, regularly updated, due to the nature of the subject, but all the
better.)

Start out by use of discussion threads, each share a same header, and be
individually branched off, by some level of category of the software type.
(Imitating that method which works well for the PL.) Start talking about
which programs in each category...head towards placing ones votes and them
being tallied in that manner you've been outlining...

I'm only presenting something very vague, I know, but if only...

 

[jason]

The pages I would put forth would have only those programs that made the
cut according to the voting procedures I described:

<quote summary>
Some programs are specialized, and even though they may be the best of
the best at their task, they do not have a large user base because only
a minority of people use such program categories. For example an FTP
server as opposed to an email client, which most everyone uses. For
example all the small single purpose apps.

I'm kind of confused...something I'm very good at. ;o) In your summary,
you talk of specialized, i.e. niche, programs, but in your examples, you
give major programs like graphics converters. So I'm unsure if you're
trying to supplement the PW vote or compete with it. I'm sure you've
explained this somewhere, but I must've missed it.

 

[jason]

Spacey Spade wrote:-

I think that during the nominations, the instructions posted to have
complete descriptions will be clear. The responsibility to post
complete and accurate descriptions should be up to the nominators.
The hand holding or guidance to correct nominations lacking
information should come from the altruism of other A.C.F.ers.

I've been amazed at the altruism so far, but my cynical mind says it can't
last. ;-) And Susan's frustration at having to constantly crack the whip
to get people to respond was palpable. (Okay, here's where Susan comes in
and says I was NOT frustrated!! But I *dare* her to say that with a
straight face. )

Anyway, I'm not advocating a postion either way, just wondering how long
the altruism will last.

 

[Spacey Spade]

I'm kind of confused...something I'm very good at. ;o) In your summary,
you talk of specialized, i.e. niche, programs, but in your examples, you
give major programs like graphics converters. So I'm unsure if you're
trying to supplement the PW vote or compete with it. I'm sure you've
explained this somewhere, but I must've missed it.

The vote for the PL would be the same as the vote for the "Niche
Pricelessware". People only respond to one thread to vote for both
processes. The popular vote (tallying based on number of votes only)
would only use this info:

LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
----------------------
CesarFTP
XnViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsEditor
IrfanViewAsGraphicsViewer

So for the popular vote, you read off 1 vote for CesarFTP, 1 vote for
XnView, and 1 vote for IrfanView.

Could you present another example for me?

Spacey

 

[Spacey Spade]

[snip voting details]

Spacey, I'm having a daydream, based on this, but then off to a rather
different track. That ACF also works on - separate from PL (the most
priceless programs) - a "FAQ."

I would mainly like to see this vote count, and supply the knowledge
derived from it. The vote would happen concurrently with the vote for
the PL so that voters need only make one vote post.

Some of the best sources of information on certain subjects are many times
a large newsgroup FAQ - a compilation of the knowledge of that newsgroup.

Like cdrfaq.org

To begin the project primarily within the group, until forms take shape.
Make it a later stage to figure out how to resolve the web presence (and
administrative labor) for such a FAQ.

I love automation too much for that! I can already see people
contributing their own FAQs, with a person organizing the FAQs in a
Directory. I still prefer handling the Voting procedure above to create
the "Niche Pricelessware" pages.

And that working towards such a FAQ, we do go towards the more
comprehensive. What is the best freeware FTP server? What are the top
seven most favored email clients? What are the best /three/ registry
editors? (*g*)

You have a pretty smile.

A FAQ which would be very structured...and fairly full.

One thing I like about the daydream, is that it would give ACF something
to do when PL discussions are over. A way to continue focusing on freeware,
in a non-repetitious way. And ideally, with the end result of compiling our
collective experiences into a worthy informational document. (A dynamic
document, regularly updated, due to the nature of the subject, but all the
better.)

Go for it!

Start out by use of discussion threads, each share a same header, and be
individually branched off, by some level of category of the software type.
(Imitating that method which works well for the PL.) Start talking about
which programs in each category...head towards placing ones votes and them
being tallied in that manner you've been outlining...

With the nature of an FAQ being so comprehensive, I doubt you would have
people read through everything all the way to the voting part. An
orderly vote once a year is good for voter turn-out (except for DC, poor
thing), and you need as much turn-out as possible to get good results.

I'm only presenting something very vague, I know, but if only...

If you like what you think of, and would have fun turning it into
reality, then go for it.

Spacey

 

[jason]

The vote for the PL would be the same as the vote for the "Niche
Pricelessware". People only respond to one thread to vote for both
processes. The popular vote (tallying based on number of votes only)
would only use this info:

LEAVE ONLY THOSE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR.
Remove all programs that you do NOT wish to vote for.
----------------------
CesarFTP
XnViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsConverter
IrfanViewAsGraphicsEditor
IrfanViewAsGraphicsViewer

So for the popular vote, you read off 1 vote for CesarFTP, 1 vote for
XnView, and 1 vote for IrfanView.

Okay, I'm feeling incrediby dense today, but let's walk through it.

This year, we had separate voting threads for Graphics, File Utilities,
etc.

Next year, you're proposing one "megathread" where all categories are
combined?

During the vote, you remove all programs you don't wish to vote for.

The only reason you have CesarFTP listed without a category assigned is
because people didn't agree to have an FTP server category??? No
category = niche program???

After the vote, the programs with categories asssigned are analyzed for
inclusion in the main PW list. The programs that don't have a category
assigned are analyzed for inclusion in a separate Niche page?? The
criteria would be more generous for the niche programs...fewer votes
required to keep them in.

Is that what you're trying to say, or am I way off?

 

[Susan Bugher]

Spacey Spade wrote:-

Susan's frustration at having to constantly crack the whip
to get people to respond was palpable. (Okay, here's where Susan comes in
and says I was NOT frustrated!! But I *dare* her to say that with a
straight face. )

I won't even try.

OTOH it was a last minute change - and that didn't help (no proper
description of what was needed etc.)

I thought Genna was going to be the point person and I would be sitting
quietly in a corner doing the web pages - when Genna found she was too
overloaded to get involved this year ISTM there I had two choices- I
could ask for a lot of help from a few people (the way I did last year)
or I could ask for a little help from a lot of people - which is what I
did. (Genna did it all - she's superwoman - I'm not).

Having survived that phase of the PL2004 selection process I'm convinced
that descriptions should be submitted before the start of nominations.
If we do that it that way next year I won't have to get the whip out.

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

 

[jason]

I thought Genna was going to be the point person and I would be
sitting quietly in a corner doing the web pages - when Genna found she
was too overloaded to get involved this year ISTM there I had two
choices- I could ask for a lot of help from a few people (the way I
did last year) or I could ask for a little help from a lot of people -
which is what I did. (Genna did it all - she's superwoman - I'm not).

Having survived that phase of the PL2004 selection process I'm
convinced that descriptions should be submitted before the start of
nominations. If we do that it that way next year I won't have to get
the whip out.

I'm all for whatever eases the load on you. So you're saying that a month
or so before the election, people start sending in descriptions of their
favorite programs...the ones they want on the ballot? You keep the group
informed of what those programs are... When election time approaches, any
program with a description is considered a formal nomination, and people
then second the programs they want on the ballot. This way, we avoid all
the begging for descriptions *after* a program has been nominated and
seconded? Is that pretty much how you envision it?

I think it was Spacey who mentioned it might involve too many programs
(not sure of the exact wording). Not sure what he meant by that...
Spacey?