🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ejd2mINN2uv@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua Randall) writes:
>I've got a whole lot of problems with this message.
> ... [ points where Kent has ignored the net.rules deleted ] ...
>
>So, in summary:
>(1)  Post the charter
>(2)  Ask for discussion, and then hold a formal RFD
>(3)  If there is interest, post a CFV which follows the guidelines.
>
>*******
>
>A thought occurs to me.  Perhaps all these guidelines are merely ways for 
>we "elitist" users to hide behind a bureaucracy?  (Gag!)  Maybe what the
>UseNet needs is *more* anarchy, not less?  In the case of this "vote", I
>think it is important that a quick decision be reached, more important than
>that the decision be an "official" one.
>
>-- 
>Joshua E. Randall                       randall-joshua@yale.edu

Thanks for that final thought, Joshua.
Having just lived through the fiasco of the renaming of rec.music.synth,
I've become a convert to the notion that common sense is MUCH more important
than following the rules.  Kent, for all his procedural sloppines vis-a-vis
the rules, has generated a CFV that makes MUCH more sense than the CFV that
appeared in rec.music.synth.  And despite the lack of a formal RFD, the
discussion here has been much more relevant and understandable than the
non-discussion or almost-dicussion in rec.music.synth.

Summary:
 - Despite the lack of procedural nicety, I don't think there's anyone in
   this group who isn't aware what the vote is about.
 - Despite rigidly following procedural nicety, too many readers of
   rec.music.synth had no idea what the vote was about.

I'll take clarity and common sense over procedural nicety any day.

Dave