🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <33300883.531F@capitalnet.com>, SCK  <sck@capitalnet.com> wrote:
>Russell McOrmond wrote:

>Aside from the fact that I think this process should be implemented only
>after a reasonable structure, I have two problems with this process.

>>   With ONAG, if you want to create a newsgroup, you send a message to
>> onag@pinetree.org.   One of a number of people there then does some
>> work.  Part of what they will do is get clarification of the intent of
>> the group, so that a CHARTER file (About file, charter file - whatever -
>> same thing) can be created for the ONAG web site (as well as being
>> posted to the group, etc).

>The charter in local groups is useless. The reality is that a small
>group of dedicated users in a local group police themselves more
>effectively that some haughty charter.

Contradictory proof: ott.general.

>Anyone can verify this if they
>don't believe me. I'd betcha without ever having even gone in there,
>that ott.motorcycles and ott.vietnamese are pretty clean compared to
>ott.general.

Right.  So, instead of a reasonably public process across all of ott.*,
you're exemplifying a group like ott.singles which is run by a far
tighter cliche than even Hans believes ONAG to be, diametrically opposed
to any growth or divergent ideas, behaving rather like a roving pack of
rabid dogs or old west vigilante gangs.  At times our very own alt.flame.

Charters can be written in such a fashion to be enforceable.  One would
have a rather hard time imagining, for example, that the charter for
ott.business.ads is "useless" and/or irrelevant.

>The charter can't be used as a legal bludgeon to fix problems in the
>group, because someone intent on making trouble is just going to ignore
>it.

So it gets enforced.  We can, and already do, do that.

>>   Part of the process is to publicly discuss this new group idea in
>> public in the ott.config newsgroup.   In this way the *INTERESTED USERS*
>> and News administrators (Not the general public who would find this boring)

>Here's the other problem: the basic assumption that "interested users"
>in, say needlepoint groups, want to monitor ott.config. I'm a geek and I
>can barely stomach ott.config, so why would you think anyone
>non-technical would?

That's the entire point about the process including solitications for
input from other related groups.  If noone can be bothered to pop over
long enough to say "good idea!", there ain't going to be very much
interest in the group.

>Perhaps I am wrong and this is already allowed, but I think a better
>compromise solution would be that e-mails from the "interested users",
>if this process is really necessary at all, be collected from the group
>proposer, concatenated into one message and dumped into ott.config so it
>can be accepted as interest.

It's already part of the process - solicitation of interest from other
groups.  Also in can.*.  Works very well there.  Why don't you go search
Dejanews for the can.jobs.gov proposal.  That went fairly quickly, and
would be created now except for some logistics difficulties in setting
up a moderator address, and the proponent just went on vacation.
-- 
"I can't stand this proliferation of paperwork.  It's useless to fight 
the forms.  You've got to kill the people producing them."
-- Vladimir Kabaidze, 64, General Director of Ivanovo Machine Building Works