Forwarded only because the original post was sent to Board-l - Tim ------------- Terri, My point was Debbie said her poll was INFORMAL. This does not sound very informal to me, it sounds as if there are underlying motives here. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Teri Pettit" <pettit@Adobe.COM> To: "Kelly" <Kellygirl3398@mpinet.net> Cc: "Debbie" <axtman@premier1.net>; <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 1:30 PM Subject: Poll for USGenWeb Issues > At 6:58 PM -0700 6/28/00, Kelly <Kellygirl3398@mpinet.net> wrote: > >Debbie, I don't understand the fuss about wording because you say below that > >this is an informal poll. If it is indeed an informal poll then there's no > >reason to perfect the wording, unless your intentions are to take the results > >of this poll and use them for whatever purposes. > > Kelly, > > There isn't any fuss about the "wording", there is a point being made > about the basic thrust of the question being asked. > > >> >Should Roger Swafford be disqualified as Elections Chairperson due to > >> >malfeasance? This poll closes 7:00 P. M. Eastern time on 6/29/00. > > Suppose for the sake of argument: > > 10% of the project members believe that the decisions of the Election > Committee are discriminatory and should be overturned, and that removing > Roger Swafford as chairman will accomplish that goal. > > 65% of the project members believe that the decisions of the Election > Committee are discriminatory and should be overturned, but that removing > Roger Swafford as chairman won't do diddly-squat to accomplish that goal, > because the decisions were almost certainly made by a majority vote of > the whole 8 member committee, and Roger just serves as the mouthpiece. > > 25% of the project members agree with the decisions of the Election > Committee to disenfranchise multiple co-CC's, local special project > coordinators, and new project members. > > Then the current poll question would get only 10% "yes", and 90% "no". > > When people vote "no" to the original question, there is no way to tell > whether they are voting no because they agree with the decisions of the > Election Committee, or they are voting no because they expect that no > matter who the chair is, the Election Committee is going to be voting > the same way, so it's pointless to replace the chair. > > But if a poll asked outright whether the decisions of the Election > Committee should be overturned, it would get the much different results > of 75% "yes" and 25% "no", sending a clear message to the Election > Committee and the Advisory Board that the members at large disagree > with recent voter-reduction acts. > > So this isn't pickiness about exact wording, it is that the question > being asked isn't the one that it is most important to get an answer to. > > -- Teri > > (I am trying to reduce traffic on the discussion lists, and so am not > CC'ing any lists except BOARD-L. Permission is granted to forward this > to any individuals that you have reason to believe are interested, but > please refrain from forwarding it to USGW-CC-L, USGENWEB-ALL-L, or > USGENWEB-DISCUSS. The subscribers to those lists are getting fed up > with the message volume.) > > >