🚀 go-pugleaf

Pardon me for jumping in here, but I couldn't help but notice
that this proposed charter closely resembles the posting 
rules for the us.* hierarchy, which you may find on the web 
at http://www.panix.com/~kingdon/usenet-us.html


On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 16:00:31 GMT, "Kingfish" <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> 
wrote, in co.config:

>
>"Tom Morgengill" <tmorgen@nonewsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:57cqku0a7qp7ucbq9r2epcrfpdobt13kqk@4ax.com...

<snip>

>: 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.
>
>Please point us to the protocol then.  Without documentation as to *why*
>this is improper, your point is invalid.  The origonal charter for the co.*
>heirarchy provided for it to be changed, in co.config through an RFD. The
>admion for co.* is AWOL and has been for at least 2 years.  Therefore there
>is no admin to issue cancels, to create new newsgroups; and the current
>charter is insufficent to handle to problems that have arisen recently in
>co.general without revision.  

Proper procedure, IMHO, would be to first appoint a new
admin for the co.* hierarchy, spell out his/her official duties,
then review *all* prior hierarchy documents and make any
changes you think are needed.  You can get advice on some
of this in news.admin.hierarchies simply by posting a query
asking what to do when a hierarchy admin disappears.  There
*is* a certain protocol to follow when appointing a new admin
if you want other admins to honor your control messages.

How you appoint the new admin is up to you.  You could do
it by fiat, consensus, or votes.  Whether you have a committee
is also up to you; there is no law that says Usenet hierarchies
must be run by committee.  In fact, the norm is generally to do
things by consensus.  Consensus means that all parties
speaking on the matter are in basic agreement as to what to do.
So it is in your best interest to get as many regular co.* posters
involved as much as possible in this project.

You can also write your own charter and set up your own rules
for the co.* hierarchy without somebody looking over your
shoulder, so long as they are consistent with Usenet policies
as a whole.  Reading what other people have done is a good
idea, but do not blindly copy them.  It is better to adapt good
ideas to your local situation, and drop what doesn't apply.

Somebody might want to go to www.faqs.org and see if there
are any hierarchy documents posted there that might give
you some better ideas as to what to put in your charter.

Finally, take your time to make sure you do it right, and give
everyone a chance to speak.  The groups will continue to
function while you work on this.  The only things you won't
be able to do is issue control messages, cancels, and other
stuff that an admin is expected to do.

Although he may be putting the cart before the horse, Kingfish
is to be commended for starting this discussion, which appears
to be way overdue.

If I can be of any help, let me know.

Henrietta K. Thomas
us.* hierarchy coordinator
hkt69@earthlink.net

Now is a proper time for the charter to be
>brought up to speed - if you dissagree with a particular part of the charter
>as it is proposed, you are welcome to make suggestions or to make additions
>where you see fit - but what I have proposed is in accordance with the co.*
>heirarchy charter as it was written and accepted.  (see the bottom of this
>message for the old charter)