Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:26:15  
uk.net.news.config Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>

>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:54:01 +0100, Paul Rudin
> wrote:
>
>>Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes:
>>
>>> Danny has already said that he emailed three former subscribers to
>>> urc.  Unless he says otherwise, he did so with an expectation that
>>> they would vote for the new group.  I call that canvassing.
>>
>>Notifying someone of the existence of a poll isn't canvassing (whatever
>>your exectation of how they might vote). Trying to influence how they
>>vote is.
>
>If they hadn't been canvassed (or notified in your words) they would
>not have voted.
>
>Unless Danny wants to impart the details of his email, and I suggest
>that he should not, we have no evidence that he was trying to
>influence a vote one way or another.  But it is evident that he was
>trying to influence the result of the vote - that is canvassing in my
>book.
>
>I say again, I do not think that Danny did anything wrong.

"evident that he was trying to influence the result of the vote" are 
strong words in unnc and shouldn't be used lightly.

What probably happened is Danny e-mailed old friends and said something 
along the lines of "looks like we might be getting a moderated urc, take 
a look"

He may even have said something like "I'm going to vote Y and hope you 
do too so we can get back to talking about cycling"

I don't see any evidence of influence in that sort of conversation, if 
he provided them with pre-filled ballots that would be different.

In any event, Danny (or someone else) would have had to send a lot more 
than 3 e-mails to make the RESULT other than what it was.

Is it uncomfortable to you that many people, not all of whom are 
cyclists, voted for the group to be created?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days