🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 19:33:45 GMT, harb@nospam.netscape.net (harlan
bettencourt) wrote:

>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.

I am not disagreeing with the proposed changes. However any changes
should be done in accordance with usenet protocol.  See my reply to
Kingfish. 

>>>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?

See the above. What I would like to do is cover all the bases.  You
and I disagree with what is and what is not an ad.  That's OK too,
unless we end up flaming the group with our opinions.  An ad, defined
should be any text that offers a product or service and that should be
outlined or the group is certain to be flamed with this issue.   .
Regards,
Tom 

>>>: 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
>>