[Baypiggies] [vote] name change
marilyn at deliberate.com
Fri Feb 2 02:47:16 CET 2007
----- On Thursday, February 1, 2007 jjinux at gmail.com wrote:
> On 1/31/07, Marilyn Davis wrote:
>> ----- On Wednesday, January 31, 2007 DennisR at dair.com wrote:
>> > At 05:24 PM 1/31/2007, Terry Carroll wrote:
>> >>On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
>> >> > To change the name of this mailing list, vote +1 and propose an alternate.
>> >> > To keep the existing name, vote -1.
>> > -1 to change the name of *this* list
>> > +1 to create a new name for list(s) we are about to add.
>> > [BayPiggies Announce] is just too long for a new list name
>> > [BP Announce] or some short name is better for *new* list
>> We haven't been invited to vote on that, although that was the proposal I
> put forward. Thank you for remembering.
>> Terry Carroll said:
>> > +0
>> > I would like the group's name changed, and voted to do so last time, which
>> > was not all that long ago.
>> > I think those of us who wanted the name changed should acknowledge that
>> > we're substantially in the minority and accept it, at least for a
>> > respectful amount of time. Let's check in maybe a couple years after the
>> > last vote on this.
>> Yes. It was JJ, who is opposed to name-changing, who is polling the group
> about this, which wasn't anyone's proposal. Sort of a slight-of-hand,
> mob-rule kind of trick. But, I say this smiling, because it is amusing and
> not so important. I just thought the pending length of the new lists' names
> was a good excuse to bend the name a little and appease us who are not
> content with the name. But, clearly JJ didn't agree and put forward a
> losing proposal instead.
>> It's all good,
> I object to this characterization of my behavior. My main objection
> to the name change is due to the burden it places on all the members.
> I never even seriously considered having two lists with different
> prefixes. Those who know me well know that I'm a stickler for
> consistency, so I would naturally object to two lists, one called
> baypiggies at python.org and the other bp-announce at python.org.
> Where you are looking to see maliciousness, there is only my obsessive
> compulsive need to make things consistent ;)
No maliciousness was seen, but perhaps an error was made. I don't know you very well, JJ, but I do know that I like you a lot and I'd bet good money that you are never malicious.
> No offense taken, though. Let's move on.
Thank you for knowing not to take offense.
The manuever that I am judging as a "trick" is, in fact, a standard trick for swaying people. Using faulty democratic procedure is so common in our current culture that almost no one knows what real democratic procedure is, and what a trick is.
I'll explain, but first, regrettably, I have to defend myself:
----- On Thursday, February 1, 2007 aahz at pythoncraft.com wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007, Marilyn Davis wrote:
>> ----- On Wednesday, January 31, 2007 DennisR at dair.com wrote:
>>> I think those of us who wanted the name changed should acknowledge
>>> that we're substantially in the minority and accept it, at least for
>>> a respectful amount of time. Let's check in maybe a couple years
>>> after the last vote on this.
>> Yes. It was JJ, who is opposed to name-changing, who is polling
>> the group about this, which wasn't anyone's proposal. Sort of a
>> slight-of-hand, mob-rule kind of trick.
> Really? Saying things like makes me wonder who exactly is playing the
> trick, so here are your own words:
No, that email is from the first poll and has nothing to do with this one.
But it does support my argument that the poll was a "trick", and a trick that you fell for, because you believed that I put the proposal forward. I did not.
Again, I'm willing to believe that you made an unintentional mistake in claiming that you caught me in a lie.
It was a "trick" on me though, and on us. Many people will read your email and label me a "liar" and never fully correct that false impression, no matter how much and how well I defend myself.
> Although I'm no longer the official list admin, I still would like this
> list conducted with professional language, and using terms such as
> "slight-of-hand", "mob-rule", and "trick" is insulting, offensive, and
Truth is always appropriate.
Here was the proposal I did put forward. I don't remember any real comments. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
----- On Friday, January 26, 2007 marilyn at deliberate.com wrote:
> I want to suggest that instead of baypiggies-xxxx at python.org, that the new
> lists' names be shortened to bp-xxxx at python.org for 2 reasons:
> 1. Long names take up too much space on the subject line.
> 2. Those of us who are uncomfortable with the "piggie" name, can think of
> ourselves as the Bay Python group.
> Just to remind you, we ran a poll about the current name last year and 18 of
> 51 voters thought the name bad enough to warrant renaming the group. That's
> 35%! That's huge.
> Here are results of that poll:
> Number of Voters Subject Poll Type Result Summary
> 51 Change name? Public [-1,1] [18/29] 0.62:1
> bp-xxxx at python.org would be a nice gesture to the 18 of us.
> What do you think?
And JJ's response a few days later. Please note that there was no mention of the real proposal. It was vetoed without a word of explanation --- until today.
But, instead of speaking to my proposal, we got this one, a sure loser:
----- On Tuesday, January 30, 2007 jjinux at gmail.com wrote:
> Ok, let's address the mother of all arguments--the name change ;)
> To change the name of this mailing list, vote +1 and propose an alternate.
> To keep the existing name, vote -1.
> Certain of our readers object to the term "baypiggies" due to the
> negative connotation. Clearly, a better term might have been
> "baysmarties", but I digress ;)
> As we come to conclusion about the direction of this mailing list, it
> makes sense to bite the bullet and vote on whether to keep the name
> baypiggies. As a historical note (Aahz can correct me), baypiggies
> stands for "Bay Area Python Interest Group", which makes sense.
> If we change the name baypiggies, we may (arguably) gain a name with a
> better connotation, but we risk irritating a lot of people who will
> have to update their mail filters and learn a new email address to
> send mail to. Worst of all, there may be instances of this email
> address in the wild, and I'm not sure if I can set it up as an alias
> if we decide to go with a new name.
> Because of the severe drawbacks of this change, I'd like to be
> conservative and propose that we only change the name if we have 10 or
> more +1s and no more than half as many -1s. I think requiring a two
> to one vote is fair given the advantages vs. the disadvantages of
> making this change.
And Stephen, this was *very* negatively proposed. Why did you claim otherwise? A mistake?
More importantly, no one who is in favor of changing the name had anything to do with this proposal. This is not a democratic jesture. It is a nip-this-in-the-bud gesture: to propose a poll that you are opposed to, when there has been no proposal or discussion from anyone else, and, furthermore, to propose it so negatively.
Yet, people on both sides of the issue have said things that indicate that they were sure that the poll was proposed by proponents, even by me. It is precisely that is natural to assume that a poll would be put forward by proponents that it was a trick.
So, it was a trick, probably an unconscious trick, but a trick, on me, and on us, the group.
Democracy is a state of mind, a way of being. When someone uses an ostensibly democratic procudure, it can be for one of two purposes, not both:
1. To ascertain the collective will of the group.
2. To sway the group.
The 2nd purpose is not democracy, but a trick on the people, a slight-of-hand, mob-rule trick. That's what it is.
And in this case, because it made people believe that proponents had the bad taste to put forward another name-change proposal so soon, it was a doubly-dirty trick, resulting in a ban on talking about name-change.
I'm very willing to accept that the two tricks played on us, and Stephen's mistake, were unconscious. But I can't help but point out that accepting for oneself the label "piggy" would *exactly* have an influence toward making oneself unconscious and uncareful and unattentive. I wish my Python-loving friends weren't required to be subject to such an influence to be in the club.
How about: Bay Area Python Flying Circus?
OK. Now I'm ready to go on.
JJ, again I thank you for taking the hard task of being under my critical eyeball. I hope you continue to be unoffended.
More information about the Baypiggies