🚀 go-pugleaf

The Kingfish's suggestion (RFD) is improper.  Anything broken can be
repaired.   Here is an example of this: 

Kingfish wrote:

>>These rules may not be amended without full RFD discussion in co.config.
>>Any person may post an RFD suggesting amendments to these rules.  The
>>procedure to be followed will be the same as for a newsgroup proposal -- two
>>weeks minimum discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully) a
>>decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting any
>>votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>>propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>>
>>Approved by consensus in co.config on   ?????????
>>
>>---
>>
>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
>
And Harlan Bettencourt decided to vote anyway....

>Yes vote.

On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 04:04:13 GMT, "Kingfish"
<spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Maraya" <maraya@dimensional.com> wrote in message
>news:3D4C55A2.7262AB32@dimensional.com...
>: [snipped]
>:
>: 1.  What if no one responds to your proposal?  How many people read this
>group?
>: How do you propose to ascertain that you've reached consensus?
>:
>
>feel free to anounce it anywhere.  I have mentioned several times to watch
>co.config to all ngs in co.*
>
This is not usenet protocol. We can't simply make up the rules to suit
our own individual needs.  If the usenet community does not accept a
charter as being reasonable, then to create it is a waste of time.
The proper protocol in itself is important.  Should a complaint be
lodged and this be brought to the attention of the usenet
administrator, you will have little support from that administrator in
enforcing it. 
>
>: 2.  Who gets to be on your proposed committee?  How many people make a
>: committee?  How do we know that all of the people who volunteer aren't
>actually
>: *you?*  We don't even know who you are.
>:
>I purpose no comittee.  That was part of the origonal charter, if such a
>comittee is desired then by consensus here it could be formed.
>
You need to collect your thoughts more accurately. In your original
post (suggestion/RFD) you said:

>Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>propose and adopt its own posting rules.

Now you state that you are proposing no committee? 
This is why there is specific protocol for creating/changing charters.
When creating a charter for a non-moderating newsgroup it is important
to realize that enforcing it is simply not possible.  For that reason,
most non-moderated group charters are written very loosely and the
kill file was created.    

>: 3.  Get a life.
>:
>: Maraya
>:
>
>read the original charter and do some comparison.  It has been posted here
>recently.
>
>
>---
>
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002