Subject:
|
Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 3 Jul 1999 04:20:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
588 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Terry Keller writes:
> Why not just make this whole thing moot and just assign numbers in a
> random or pseudo-random lottery? Have each person apply for a number,
> and have a server doohicky spit out a random number from an available
> pool.
Well, if they're still generally increasing slowly and the randomness comes
from a small pool of lowest-available numbers rather than a large pool of,
say, 32-bit integers, then that would certainly work too.
> I think we're attaching far too much importance to these numbers.
This is something I've been curious to learn more about for over 2 years.
I personally don't think that the particular assignments of numbers really
don't matter much (and would be perfectly happy letting things get assigned
semi-randomly on a first-come-first-serve basis), but if it turns out that
many people do feel that the allocation of lower numbers matter, then that's
an important consideration, since the decision has very long-term
implications.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| (...) Why not just make this whole thing moot and just assign numbers in a random or pseudo-random lottery? Have each person apply for a number, and have a server doohicky spit out a random number from an available pool. I think we're attaching far (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
112 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
