[Theforum] Re: VotingReqs

[A. Erickson]

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > And I don't really see the benefit of restricting *poll*
> results to
> >certain groups (restricting vote results can  be handled already).
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> you don't?  i can think of lots of uses to do informal
> polls/surveys to specific groups of w.e.o. users, but that's
> just me i guess.

Look, Jeff. You have no idea how little I want to fight about this.

I see in reading these threads that there's more than a little
discussion about table structures and who does what and how with the
PUBLIC POLLING app which wasn't even on my mind when I wrote the Voting
Reqs than the Voting App itself.

I *personally* don't want to lead through the hash and rehash of public
polling. I feel like getting a voting req agreed to for the timebeing is
most important. Especially since it sounds like the public polling idea
has been bandied about by the few of you more than others.

I guess what I'm saying is: help me. I don't know what to write about
public polling. If you (you meaning Jeff or anyone else listening) want
it wrapped in this document then put it in there.

I don't want the voting app to be held up by public polling discussions.
Granted, once this doc goes to thesite it's out of my hands and if you
guys what to thresh through the details of polling while the voting app
gets built -- I ain't gonna stop you.

Make sense?

- amanda

P.S. If it's putting the wording *in* the actual doc that is the
problem, I'll take care of that but I need a better idea of what I'm
supposed to put in there. So email suggestions would suffice.