🚀 go-pugleaf

emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>/assuming/ this controversy recurs over another renaming, /assuming/
>the renamed group is gatewayed, /assuming/ the gateway has no
>maintainer, or if the so-called "maintainer" is so incompetent that
>s/he can't even change the name of the newsgroup, the gateway will
>likely be taken over by a volunteer at another site.

That, too, is an assumption. 

>Ignoring the rules this time will lead to more disputes because of the
>precedent established that the rules can be shouted down, amendments
>or no.  

I see *this* point as contrived, myself. (Is this argument to be used even 
in the case of "extraordinary circumstances"?) Since shouting is occurring,
we must assume a dispute of some sort. I don't think "lessening the
number of disputes" is a valid reason for ignoring valid complaints.

>The newsgroup administration process should be simple, fast, and
>cheap.  

Was this rename so?

>Revotes are duplication of effort which should only occur if a gross
>injustice occurs.  

By who's standard is an event a gross injustice? 

>Again, a yardstick for good policy is whether the right thing occurs
>quickly with a minimum of articles posted to n.a.newgroups and other
>related groups.

And for that matter, by who's standard is a thing right? I'll bet
that this is not a subject that we can reach a consensus on. 

>I think a straw poll would put this in better perspective.  I will
>conduct one.

Great!
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

   A man was claiming to be a Prophet. He was taken before the Church.
   "Prophets reveal miracles," said the Minister. "What is yours?"
   The man replied: "I have the ability to read thoughts.  Right now
               you are all thinking that I am lying."