🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 08:00:08 -0600, Tom Morgengill
<tmorgen@nonewsguy.com> wrote:

>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....

Aw nuts, just say I added my consensus, my discusson is that he made a
decent revision we can all live with.

>>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.    

The fact is we have a group whose admin resigned but charter
continues. Revising it may be a good thing, why get in the way of
that?

>>: 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
>