--- In OAFs@y..., r.prevost@h... wrote:
--- In OAFs@y..., attilla.danko@s... wrote:
Gee. Picking a name was fun.
a. create another group called, say "OAFs-voting" etc. etc.
YES. YES. YES.
Ok. I have created a group where we can yak about how to run
OAFs. I've called it OAFuscators, largely because I'm too tired
to think of a better one.
> Um... could "we" create such a group right away, and then go there
to
debate and vote on whether "we" should create such a group in the
first place?
I'd like to suggest a really simple way of voting on the creation
of OAFuscators.
If you think the list is a good idea, subscribe to it and start
posting.
If you think its a bad idea, don't join it. Post here instead.
As like last time, everyone gets a veto. Post here if you think
this is a bad idea. After we have heard from everyone in thronging
masses of OAFs (all 5 of us), it should be clear if we agree to
accecpt OAFuscators or not.
If we do accept OAFuscators, we can immediately change its name
if people want. We can also change its charter and anything else
with a vote.
The mandate of OAFuscators will be re-affirmed everytime someone
choose to put an posting that would have been off-topic for OAFs there
instead of on OAFS.
As for going public, I'd say, if people feel like it sure.
Feel free to create a vote or otherwise state your opinion.
If you like, use OAFuscators to do that.
Clear skies.
-ad
ps. great observing seesion at mikes tonight. Care to post a report,
mike? Hey, that would be the first on-topic post in a while.
oops. Obligatory monty-python:
Maitre D: And finally, monsieur, a wafer-thin email-list.
Mr Creosote: No.
Maitre D: Oh sir! It's only a tiny little thin one.
