🚀 go-pugleaf

Paul Womar <{$PW$}@pwomar.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Rebecca and Rowland <real-address-in-sig@rhu.barb.foobar> wrote:
> 
> > Ben Lovejoy <ben@lovejoy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >I'd therefore like to see the above tightened up to simply say
> > > messages from those currently resident in the UK.
> > 
> > I thought of that, but what about *geniune* people currently resident
> > outside the UK?  UK residents currently working abroad and things like
> > that?
> > 
> > How about changing it to `UK residents'?   That covers (without being
> > explicit about it) people currently living here, or with the right to
> > live here:
> 
> I think it is right as it is, there is a statement about who the uk.*
> groups are for, it's probably in the docs you have downloaded and I
> think you stated what the uk.* is about pretty well.

Righto - a point of dissention.  Well, *I* don't know what's best.

I've got two forms of this paragraph:

---------------------------------------------
version 1:
uk.comp.sys.mac is for the discussion of issues relating to Apple's 
Macintosh computers (Macs).  Contributions are welcome from people who:
use Macs; and live, work, or study in, or mean to visit, the UK.

version 2:
uk.comp.sys.mac is for the discussion of issues relating to Apple's 
Macintosh computers (Macs).  Contributions are welcome from people who:
use Macs; and are UK residents.

---------------------------------------------

I'm inclined to the first version myself, because it's more explicit.
Given the point just made about the uk hierarchy already having a
defined audience, I reckon version 1 does the job.

Any comments?

> > There is that, hence the lack of a blanket ban on sigs longer than 4
> > lines; this 4-line limit applies *only* to commercial sigs.
> 
> After having seen people with 150 line sigs in the comp.sys.mac groups I
> think at least encouraging people to stick to basic netiquette like
> putting trimmed quotes before fresh text and keeping sigs under 4 lines
> should be mentioned and encouraged within the charter.

Hmm...  But that's already done by the rfcs and guides on Usenet
behaviour anyway, so I don't think it's necessary to put it into the
group's charter.  The other argument against adding paragraphs about
that sort of thing is that hardly anyone reads these charters once the
group's been created.

Any thoughts?

> > I've come across another thing to tack onto the charter to make the bit
> > about binaries exclude HTML and so on:
> > 
> > HTML and other forms of formatting markup are excluded as if they
> > were binaries.
> 
> I think using excluded makes things a bit unclear, perhaps "for the
> purposes of this charter; HTML and other forms of formatting markup are
> treated as binaries and are therfore not acceptable in this group"?

Good point.  I think the best wording doesn't mention binaries in this
context at all:

With the exception of PGP signatures, the posting of binaries or other
encoded data files is not permitted.  All postings must be in plain
text; HTML and other forms of formatting markup are not permitted.
Pointers to relevant external information sources (Web or FTP urls, for
example) are welcome.

Any thoughts?

Rowland.


-- 
Remove the animal for my email address:   rebecca@astrid.dog.u-net.com
Sorry - the spam got to me.                       PGP pub key A680B89D
UK biker?                    Join MAG and help keep bureaucracy at bay
                          http://dredd.meng.ucl.ac.uk/www/mag/mag.html