-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

   Amend the UK Committee documents by replacing the Permanent Members
              with a new class of "Infrastructure Members".



      *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.MANAGEMENT ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE

The concept of "permanent member" carries much less relevance to UK Usenet
than it did when it was set up. The Committee feels that it would be better
expanded to cover any organisation involved, directly or indirectly, in the
provision of Usenet service. Therefore we are proposing replacing them by a
new class of Infrastructure Members.

There are two types of people who might be appointed as Infrastructure
Members. Firstly, there are people with direct knowledge of the issues of
providing Usenet service as opposed to simply being an end-user. They
wouldn't need to speak on behalf of, or represent, their organisation
within the committee, but they'd need to be willing and able to use their
influence within their organisation on behalf of the committee where
appropriate as well as being able to share their knowledge with the
committee. If they changed employer they could retain their membership,
though if their new position was not involved with Usenet then they would
have to resign.

The second type of person is an invited representative of an organisation,
an ISP, or a trade or similar association. Once nominated by that body they
would be members of themselves, and wouldn't be expected to speak formally
for the body, though of course they would be expected to use their
influence. The nominating body could withdraw their support, in which case
the member would have to resign unless they are eligible to remain in their
own right (after all, it's quite likely that the body would pick someone
involved in Usenet provision). The body would have no right to pick a
successor; the Committee could ask them to choose a replacement, or could
find a replacement on a different basis.

There is no "correct" division of places between these two types. The
Committee would be expected to judge on a case-by-case basis.

One of the reasons that the old "news admin" class of member was abolished
was that we could not get enough people willing to stand for election. This
is likely to remain the case; the people we are looking for will not
necessarily have had much involvement in Usenet politics. Therefore, as
with the present Permanent Members, we propose that the Committee
select candidates and make the initial approach, but use the existing
co-option process to provide the electorate with a veto.

In this rapidly changing industry, it is better for the Committee to
actively re-evaluate membership at regular intervals rather than waiting
for a member to resign - or simply drop out of contact. Equally, experience
with the existing Permanent membership shows us that nothing particularly
formal is necessary. Therefore we are proposing an annual review by the
Committee.

This proposal has been discussed by the Committee, none of whom objected to
the concept.

PROPOSAL

Make the following changes to the document titled "The UK Usenet Committee".

Under "Membership", delete item 1 ("Permanent Members") and replace with:

    1. Infrastructure Members

    The Committee shall include, as Infrastructure Members, up to 4
    people who are involved in the provision of Usenet infrastructure
    in the UK. Each Infrastructure Member shall be a person who plays a
    technical or managerial role in propagating Usenet through the UK,
    or in providing it to end users, or represents a company or
    organisation, or an association which includes such companies or
    organisations, that provides such services.

    Infrastructure Members are appointed by the Committee as individuals
    and not as nominees. As such, they do not lose eligibility simply
    because they have changed employer. However, they shall resign if for
    any reason they are no longer eligible for membership in this class
    (unless the break in eligibility is clearly temporary). Where they were
    appointed as a representative of a company or organisation, that
    company or organisation can withdraw their support (making the person
    no longer eligible on the basis of that representation) but are not
    automatically entitled to nominate a replacement.

    The term of service of an Infrastructure Member shall be indefinite.
    Each year during January the elected members of the Committee shall
    consider the current Infrastructure Members and may confirm their
    appointment for another year. If the appointment of an Infrastructure
    Member is not confirmed, their term shall end on the 31st January of
    that year. Former Infrastructure Members, provided they are otherwise
    eligible - are eligible for co-option at any future time.

In the first paragraph of "Co-opting Committee Members", replace
"retirement" by "retirement or resignation" and add after "annual election"
the words ", or any other cause".

In the fourth paragraph of "Co-opting Committee Members", replace
"the Open class" by "all classes".

Add a new paragraph at the end of "Co-opting Committee Members":

    When the Committee decide not to confirm the appointment of an
    Infrastructure Member, and if they have selected a replacement, the
    Committee SHOULD issue an "Intention to Co-Opt" as soon as possible.
    In this case, the resulting co-option takes effect on the 1st February
    if that is later than the end of the 7 day notice period, and the
    notice of intention SHALL state this.

Add a new section "Transition Arrangements":

    The initial Infrastructure Members shall be the Permanent Members as
    of the date that this amendment takes effect. Until the end of
    January 2008 they shall be deemed to be eligible to be Infrastructure
    Members irrespective of their actual situation.

END PROPOSAL

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until September 23rd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method.  Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website).  Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
        uk.net.news.announce
        uk.net.news.management
        uk.net.news.config

Proponent:
        Clive D.W. Feather 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.5-(Cygwin)
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBRuhHhmOfGXkh8vHZAQI86gP7BZXSehtVIOXz0IQ6Dp9dUAJApQzBVX+E
OTMhlRpcco9IdWqmDiNzpgTDkz4JAPrPV2P72ivTRhqDMFHayVcEWeKl2Admuyqa
aIVuJYaLc9gd5jMHNvdupqNwnFK/8f2Mk5Y8z5aWcsStypFOQcv3Unn3IPfvt8IF
zDD9QdVrlV8=
=LVMc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Krustov wrote:
> <uk.net.news.config>
> <Clive D.W. Feather>
> <Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:08:35 +0100>
> <rfd1-committee-elections-2007-20070912200835$78b9@gradwell.net>
>
>> RATIONALE
>>
>> The concept of "permanent member" carries much less relevance to UK
>> Usenet than it did when it was set up. The Committee feels that it
>> would be better expanded to cover any organisation involved,
>> directly or indirectly, in the provision of Usenet service.
>> Therefore we are proposing replacing them by a new class of
>> Infrastructure Members.
>>
>
> I strongly object to the above .
>
> I'm quite looking forward to the farce of electing committee members
> who never have anything to do because nobody proposes new uk.*
> newsgroups .

Don't worry Krusty - you will still be able to enjoy the elections for the 
*non* permanent members.


-- 
  kat
          >^..^<

Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:08:35 
<rfd1-committee-elections-2007-20070912200835$78b9@gradwell.net> 
uk.net.news.config Clive D. W. Feather 

>                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

>Therefore we are proposing replacing them by a
>new class of Infrastructure Members.

I may have missed a word but are Infrastructure Members defined in the 
doc?  I may have just missed it and it is there.

P.S. Please try to think of another word, folks!  I now you probaby 
thought long and hard and *then* came up with Infrastructure but it is 
ugly.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Adult Book - Malcolm Knox
Locas, The Maggie and Hopey Stories - Jaime Hernandez

In article <J3AzU+JBhJ6GFwAu@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm... 
 writes
>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:08:35 
><rfd1-committee-elections-2007-20070912200835$78b9@gradwell.net> 
>uk.net.news.config Clive D. W. Feather 
>
>>                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>>Therefore we are proposing replacing them by a
>>new class of Infrastructure Members.
>
>I may have missed a word but are Infrastructure Members defined in the 
>doc?  I may have just missed it and it is there.

Well, it's defined by usage, the same as Open Member is at present:

     The Committee shall include, as Infrastructure Members, up to 4
     people who are involved in the provision of Usenet infrastructure
     in the UK. Each Infrastructure Member shall be a person who [...]

>P.S. Please try to think of another word, folks!  I now you probaby 
>thought long and hard and *then* came up with Infrastructure but it is 
>ugly.

Do you have a better suggestion?

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Clive D. W. Feather  wrote:
> 
>>P.S. Please try to think of another word, folks!  I now you probaby 
>>thought long and hard and *then* came up with Infrastructure but it is 
>>ugly.
> 
> Do you have a better suggestion?
> 

Infrastructure is sensible. I like the idea that membership is
individual rather than institutional too - there is a limited amount of
clue in the ecosystem and the ability to hang onto people who possess it
rather than giving roles to organisations that may or may not have a
sensible candidate is a good one.

I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to the UK
geographically - I would hope that major providers (by volume of traffic
on uk.*) are invited to suggest candidates - e.g. news.indiviual.net

pete
-- 
pete@fenelon.com "how many clever men have called the sun a fool?"

In article , Pete Fenelon 
 writes
>I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to the UK
>geographically - I would hope that major providers (by volume of traffic
>on uk.*) are invited to suggest candidates - e.g. news.indiviual.net

There's no written restriction on the location of members or relevant 
organisations; who the Committee wish to pick will be up to them.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In uk.net.news.management message , Thu, 13
Sep 2007 13:00:20, Pete Fenelon  posted:
>
>I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to the UK
>geographically

All nearby parts of Her Majesty's Realm, for example that headed by the
Lord of Mann, should undoubtedly be included, independently of whether
they are in the EU. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands>.


> - I would hope that major providers (by volume of traffic
>on uk.*) are invited to suggest candidates

Only those who consider the UK market to be a significant part of their
business would really be appropriate.  But as appointments are intended
to be of individuals by committee, that can be considered as an implicit
guideline to be stretched where appropriate.

When such a Member becomes ineligible, perhaps by collapse of employer
or retirement, ISTM that it would be right for the resignation to be
tendered.  But I suggest that the Member should generally then be asked
to continue to serve until a new Member becomes effective.  He may have
lost influence, but he will still have expertise.


-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   MIME.
 Web  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
  Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
 No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In uk.net.news.management message , Thu,
> 13 Sep 2007 13:00:20, Pete Fenelon  posted:
>>
>> I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to the
>> UK geographically
>
> All nearby parts of Her Majesty's Realm, for example that headed by
> the Lord of Mann, should undoubtedly be included, independently of
> whether they are in the EU.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands>.

As far as I can tell, the Lord of Mann is the Home Secretary.
-- 
John Briggs

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:50:28 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

> Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>> In uk.net.news.management message , Thu,
>> 13 Sep 2007 13:00:20, Pete Fenelon  posted:
>>>
>>> I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to the
>>> UK geographically
>>
>> All nearby parts of Her Majesty's Realm, for example that headed by
>> the Lord of Mann, should undoubtedly be included, independently of
>> whether they are in the EU.
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands>.
>
> As far as I can tell, the Lord of Mann is the Home Secretary.

HM Brenda

Tony

"Clive D. W. Feather"  wrote in
news:j6e9QUSM8L6GFwFz@romana.davros.org: 

> In article <J3AzU+JBhJ6GFwAu@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm... 
> writes


>>P.S. Please try to think of another word, folks!  I now you
>>probaby thought long and hard and *then* came up with
>>Infrastructure but it is ugly.
> 
> Do you have a better suggestion?
> 

How about "Industry"? Or "Industrial"?  Or even "Industrious"??

-- 
Percy Picacity

Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:50:28 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>> Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>> In uk.net.news.management message , Thu,
>>> 13 Sep 2007 13:00:20, Pete Fenelon 
>>> posted:
>>>>
>>>> I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to the
>>>> UK geographically
>>>
>>> All nearby parts of Her Majesty's Realm, for example that headed by
>>> the Lord of Mann, should undoubtedly be included, independently of
>>> whether they are in the EU.
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands>.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the Lord of Mann is the Home Secretary.
>
> HM Brenda

The Queen is *Suzerain* of Mann.  The last Under-King (Lord) of Mann sold 
the office to the Home Office in 1765.  It is absurd to claim that the Queen 
is Lord of Mann, as that is a subordinate feudal position.  It is just a 
ridiculous to claim that the Queen is Duke of Lancaster - but most Manx come 
from Lancashire anyway...
-- 
John Briggs

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:35:12 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:50:28 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>>> In uk.net.news.management message , Thu,
>>>> 13 Sep 2007 13:00:20, Pete Fenelon 
>>>> posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to the
>>>>> UK geographically
>>>>
>>>> All nearby parts of Her Majesty's Realm, for example that headed by
>>>> the Lord of Mann, should undoubtedly be included, independently of
>>>> whether they are in the EU.
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands>.
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, the Lord of Mann is the Home Secretary.
>>
>> HM Brenda
>
> The Queen is *Suzerain* of Mann.  The last Under-King (Lord) of Mann sold 
> the office to the Home Office in 1765.  It is absurd to claim that the Queen 
> is Lord of Mann, as that is a subordinate feudal position.

I believe it is not subordinate but identical.  Over time the feudal
rulers have been called variously Suzerain, King and Lord of Mann.

http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/people/lords/index.htm

Tony

Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:35:12 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:50:28 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>>>> In uk.net.news.management message ,
>>>>> Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:00:20, Pete Fenelon 
>>>>> posted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to
>>>>>> the UK geographically
>>>>>
>>>>> All nearby parts of Her Majesty's Realm, for example that headed
>>>>> by the Lord of Mann, should undoubtedly be included,
>>>>> independently of whether they are in the EU.
>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands>.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell, the Lord of Mann is the Home Secretary.
>>>
>>> HM Brenda
>>
>> The Queen is *Suzerain* of Mann.  The last Under-King (Lord) of Mann
>> sold the office to the Home Office in 1765.  It is absurd to claim
>> that the Queen is Lord of Mann, as that is a subordinate feudal
>> position.
>
> I believe it is not subordinate but identical.  Over time the feudal
> rulers have been called variously Suzerain, King and Lord of Mann.

No - the Suzerain is the Overlord (over-king): at various times the Kings of 
Norway, Scotland and England.  The Kingship of Man has always been an 
under-kingship.  The Stanleys (with a remarkable sense for 
self-preservation) were always careful to use the title "Lord of Man" rather 
than "King of Man".  Henry VI is said to have made his favourite, the Duke 
of Warwick, "King of the Isle of Wight".
-- 
John Briggs

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:52:42 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:35:12 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:50:28 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>>>>> In uk.net.news.management message ,
>>>>>> Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:00:20, Pete Fenelon 
>>>>>> posted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to
>>>>>>> the UK geographically
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All nearby parts of Her Majesty's Realm, for example that headed
>>>>>> by the Lord of Mann, should undoubtedly be included,
>>>>>> independently of whether they are in the EU.
>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands>.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I can tell, the Lord of Mann is the Home Secretary.
>>>>
>>>> HM Brenda
>>>
>>> The Queen is *Suzerain* of Mann.  The last Under-King (Lord) of Mann
>>> sold the office to the Home Office in 1765.  It is absurd to claim
>>> that the Queen is Lord of Mann, as that is a subordinate feudal
>>> position.
>>
>> I believe it is not subordinate but identical.  Over time the feudal
>> rulers have been called variously Suzerain, King and Lord of Mann.
>
> No - the Suzerain is the Overlord (over-king): at various times the Kings of 
> Norway, Scotland and England.  The Kingship of Man has always been an 
> under-kingship.  The Stanleys (with a remarkable sense for 
> self-preservation) were always careful to use the title "Lord of Man" rather 
> than "King of Man".  Henry VI is said to have made his favourite, the Duke 
> of Warwick, "King of the Isle of Wight".

That is a version of history with which neither Brenda Herself nor her
government in the Isle of Man, agree:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5658.asp says:

"The Queen also has other titles by which she is known in different parts
of Britain. In the Isle of Man, she is Lord of Man; in the Channel
Islands, she is Duke of Normandy; and in the land of the Duchy of
Lancaster, she is Duke of Lancaster."

http://www.gov.im/isleofman/parliament.xml says:

Her Majesty the Queen as Lord of Mann is our Head of State. Her personal
representative on the Island is His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor,
who is appointed by the Crown for a five-year term. 

Tony

In uk.net.news.management message <EPsGi.42560$6u5.7507@newsfe1-gui.ntli
.net>, Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:50:28, John Briggs
 posted:
>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>> In uk.net.news.management message , Thu,
>> 13 Sep 2007 13:00:20, Pete Fenelon  posted:
>>>
>>> I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to the
>>> UK geographically
>>
>> All nearby parts of Her Majesty's Realm, for example that headed by
>> the Lord of Mann, should undoubtedly be included, independently of
>> whether they are in the EU.
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands>.
>
>As far as I can tell, the Lord of Mann is the Home Secretary.

Your research and education are manifestly inadequate.

As a test, I just typed 'Lord of Mann' in my IE6 address bar, and the
answer (from a source likely to be right) was displayed in the first
result.  The last result on the first page also showed the answer, from
a source which Really Can Be Expected To Have Got It Right (the Manx
PO).  Using '"Lord of Mann"' is even better.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   MIME.
 Web  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
 Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
 Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:39:40  
uk.net.news.management Clive D. W. Feather 


>In article <J3AzU+JBhJ6GFwAu@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm... 
> writes
>>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:08:35 
>><rfd1-committee-elections-2007-20070912200835$78b9@gradwell.net> 
>>uk.net.news.config Clive D. W. Feather 
>>
>>>                     REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>>>Therefore we are proposing replacing them by a
>>>new class of Infrastructure Members.
>>
>>I may have missed a word but are Infrastructure Members defined in the 
>>doc?  I may have just missed it and it is there.
>
>Well, it's defined by usage, the same as Open Member is at present:
>
>    The Committee shall include, as Infrastructure Members, up to 4
>    people who are involved in the provision of Usenet infrastructure
>    in the UK. Each Infrastructure Member shall be a person who [...]

All self referential, surely?

A blob is a person involved in blobbing; each blob, etc. (it could have 
been blah or summat, no offence to blobs)

>>P.S. Please try to think of another word, folks!  I now you probaby 
>>thought long and hard and *then* came up with Infrastructure but it is 
>>ugly.
>
>Do you have a better suggestion?

I don't know what you mean by Infrastructure and don't know how anyone 
else could know what you (plural) mean without you explaining it a bit 
more.

If you defined it we could agree or disagree with it.

As you point out (and as I noticed) it is defined by usage.  But what 
does it mean in this context?  Surely the committee as a whole has an 
idea?

I see PercyP has come up with some other words and I could too.  I would 
like the idea or concept defined a bit more clearly before I attach a 
word to it.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Adult Book - Malcolm Knox
Locas, The Maggie and Hopey Stories - Jaime Hernandez

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:55:08  
uk.net.news.management Percy Picacity <key@under.the.invalid>

>"Clive D. W. Feather"  wrote in
>news:j6e9QUSM8L6GFwFz@romana.davros.org:
>
>> In article <J3AzU+JBhJ6GFwAu@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
>> writes
>
>
>>>P.S. Please try to think of another word, folks!  I now you
>>>probaby thought long and hard and *then* came up with
>>>Infrastructure but it is ugly.
>>
>> Do you have a better suggestion?
>>
>
>How about "Industry"? Or "Industrial"?  Or even "Industrious"??

Business? Commercial? Professional?  Techie? Retired-but-still-active? 
New-to-the-job-but-keen-to-prove-credentials?

Other suggestions welcomed, I can't offer a "correct" word as I don't 
know what Infrastructure means in this case.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Adult Book - Malcolm Knox
Locas, The Maggie and Hopey Stories - Jaime Hernandez

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:49:40 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
 wrote:

> As a test, I just typed 'Lord of Mann' in my IE6 address bar

The abilities of your browser or your DNS resolver are remarkable.

Tony

Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:52:42 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:35:12 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:50:28 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>>>>>> In uk.net.news.management message ,
>>>>>>> Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:00:20, Pete Fenelon
>>>>>>>  posted:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to
>>>>>>>> the UK geographically
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All nearby parts of Her Majesty's Realm, for example that headed
>>>>>>> by the Lord of Mann, should undoubtedly be included,
>>>>>>> independently of whether they are in the EU.
>>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I can tell, the Lord of Mann is the Home Secretary.
>>>>>
>>>>> HM Brenda
>>>>
>>>> The Queen is *Suzerain* of Mann.  The last Under-King (Lord) of
>>>> Mann sold the office to the Home Office in 1765.  It is absurd to
>>>> claim that the Queen is Lord of Mann, as that is a subordinate
>>>> feudal position.
>>>
>>> I believe it is not subordinate but identical.  Over time the feudal
>>> rulers have been called variously Suzerain, King and Lord of Mann.
>>
>> No - the Suzerain is the Overlord (over-king): at various times the
>> Kings of Norway, Scotland and England.  The Kingship of Man has
>> always been an under-kingship.  The Stanleys (with a remarkable
>> sense for self-preservation) were always careful to use the title
>> "Lord of Man" rather than "King of Man".  Henry VI is said to have
>> made his favourite, the Duke of Warwick, "King of the Isle of Wight".
>
> That is a version of history with which neither Brenda Herself nor her
> government in the Isle of Man, agree:
>
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5658.asp says:
>
> "The Queen also has other titles by which she is known in different
> parts of Britain. In the Isle of Man, she is Lord of Man; in the
> Channel Islands, she is Duke of Normandy; and in the land of the
> Duchy of Lancaster, she is Duke of Lancaster."

Well, she's wrong.  I've explained the Isle of Man and the Duchy of 
Lancaster for you.  The Duchy of Normandy is a touch more complex, as she is 
a vassal of the King of France - perhaps it was unwise to give up the claim 
to the French throne in 1801...

You'll be saying next that the Queen is Lord High Admiral - which is equally 
ridiculous.

> http://www.gov.im/isleofman/parliament.xml says:
>
> Her Majesty the Queen as Lord of Mann is our Head of State. Her
> personal representative on the Island is His Excellency the
> Lieutenant Governor, who is appointed by the Crown for a five-year
> term.

That's just them bolstering their own ridiculous pretenses - in reality, 
they are the Isle of Wight with (dubious) tax breaks.  Have you ever been 
there?

These minor dependencies should be annexed to the United Kingdom.  There are 
absurd anomalies: the Isle of Man is not in the European Union - although it 
is in customs union with the United Kingdom!
-- 
John Briggs

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In uk.net.news.management message
> <EPsGi.42560$6u5.7507@newsfe1-gui.ntli .net>, Fri, 14 Sep 2007
> 09:50:28, John Briggs  posted:
>> Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>> In uk.net.news.management message , Thu,
>>> 13 Sep 2007 13:00:20, Pete Fenelon 
>>> posted:
>>>>
>>>> I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to the
>>>> UK geographically
>>>
>>> All nearby parts of Her Majesty's Realm, for example that headed by
>>> the Lord of Mann, should undoubtedly be included, independently of
>>> whether they are in the EU.
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands>.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the Lord of Mann is the Home Secretary.
>
> Your research and education are manifestly inadequate.

Do you not think it possible that I might know more than  you?

> As a test, I just typed 'Lord of Mann' in my IE6 address bar, and the
> answer (from a source likely to be right) was displayed in the first
> result.  The last result on the first page also showed the answer,
> from a source which Really Can Be Expected To Have Got It Right (the
> Manx PO).  Using '"Lord of Mann"' is even better.

To whom did the last Lord of Man sell his office?
-- 
John Briggs

Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:49:40 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
>  wrote:
>
>> As a test, I just typed 'Lord of Mann' in my IE6 address bar
>
> The abilities of your browser or your DNS resolver are remarkable.

IE7 defaults to a Google search. (He may have meant IE7)
-- 
John Briggs

John Briggs wrote:
> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>
>> http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5658.asp says:
>>
>> "The Queen also has other titles by which she is known in different
>> parts of Britain. In the Isle of Man, she is Lord of Man; in the
>> Channel Islands, she is Duke of Normandy; and in the land of the
>> Duchy of Lancaster, she is Duke of Lancaster."
>
> Well, she's wrong.

It is demonstrably wrong, because it says "different parts of Britain" - the 
Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not "parts of Britain".  It is more 
subtly  worded when it says "In the Isle of Man, she is [known as] Lord of 
Man" - because "Lord of Man" is not actually part of the Royal Titles - it 
is just one that happens to be used in the Isle of Man itself.
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.net.news.management message <8qRGi.6941$gZ.3111@newsfe7-win.ntli.n
et>, Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:49:56, John Briggs 
posted:
>Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:49:40 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> As a test, I just typed 'Lord of Mann' in my IE6 address bar
>>
>> The abilities of your browser or your DNS resolver are remarkable.
>
>IE7 defaults to a Google search. (He may have meant IE7)

I meant IE6.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   MIME.
 Web  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
 Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
 Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)

In uk.net.news.management message <opRGi.6940$gZ.942@newsfe7-win.ntli.ne
t>, Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:49:08, John Briggs 
posted:
>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>> In uk.net.news.management message
>> <EPsGi.42560$6u5.7507@newsfe1-gui.ntli .net>, Fri, 14 Sep 2007
>> 09:50:28, John Briggs  posted:
>>> Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>>> In uk.net.news.management message , Thu,
>>>> 13 Sep 2007 13:00:20, Pete Fenelon 
>>>> posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to the
>>>>> UK geographically
>>>>
>>>> All nearby parts of Her Majesty's Realm, for example that headed by
>>>> the Lord of Mann, should undoubtedly be included, independently of
>>>> whether they are in the EU.
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands>.
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, the Lord of Mann is the Home Secretary.
>>
>> Your research and education are manifestly inadequate.
>
>Do you not think it possible that I might know more than  you?

It is possible.  But the evidence is that you do not know much of that
which I do know.  Granted, you probably know some things that I do not;
for example, I verified a couple of nights ago that I understand very
little spoken Japanese - you may be fluent in the language, for all I
know.  Indeed, I admit not knowing whether you know Japanese - but
presumably you know whether or not you are.

It seems that you have not learned the difference between education and
mere knowledge; and trivial research is needed to tell that the Lord of
Mann is not the Home Secretary (through whom, however, much of the work
may be done).


>> As a test, I just typed 'Lord of Mann' in my IE6 address bar, and the
>> answer (from a source likely to be right) was displayed in the first
>> result.  The last result on the first page also showed the answer,
>> from a source which Really Can Be Expected To Have Got It Right (the
>> Manx PO).  Using '"Lord of Mann"' is even better.
>
>To whom did the last Lord of Man sell his office?

The latest Lord of Mann (the spelling is unimportant) retains her
office.

The latest (probably only) sale of the office was by a woman.  Strange,
indeed.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   IE 6.
 Web  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
 I find MiniTrue useful for viewing/searching/altering files, at a DOS prompt;
 free, DOS/Win/UNIX, <URL:http://www.idiotsdelight.net/minitrue/> unsupported.

In uk.net.news.management message <h66ne3du392p6tffaq0ir36dc79ji9u0de@4a
x.com>, Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:34:40, Anthony R. Gold <not-for-
mail@ahjg.co.uk> posted:
>On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:49:40 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
> wrote:
>
>> As a test, I just typed 'Lord of Mann' in my IE6 address bar
>
>The abilities of your browser or your DNS resolver are remarkable.

Not very.  I just tried it in FireFox and Opera, and in each case
directly reached <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Mann>.  That
implies that there was no Lord of Mann in 1837-1901.

IE6 was better; it gave a large choice of pages.  Try entering 707.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   MIME.
 Web  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
  Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
 No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

In uk.net.news.management message <KJRGi.36991$mZ5.5456@newsfe6-win.ntli
.net>, Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:10:50, John Briggs
 posted:
>John Briggs wrote:
>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5658.asp says:
>>>
>>> "The Queen also has other titles by which she is known in different
>>> parts of Britain. In the Isle of Man, she is Lord of Man; in the
>>> Channel Islands, she is Duke of Normandy; and in the land of the
>>> Duchy of Lancaster, she is Duke of Lancaster."
>>
>> Well, she's wrong.
>
>It is demonstrably wrong, because it says "different parts of Britain" - the
>Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not "parts of Britain".  It is more
>subtly  worded when it says "In the Isle of Man, she is [known as] Lord of
>Man" - because "Lord of Man" is not actually part of the Royal Titles - it
>is just one that happens to be used in the Isle of Man itself.


You may be using an inappropriate interpretation of "Britain"; the term
seems not well defined.

The Isle of Man is certainly a part of the British Isles (like Cork),
and IoM & CI are parts of the British Islands, but they are not parts of
Great Britain and therefore (being also not parts of Northern Ireland)
not parts of the UK.

Indeed, I could not find any reference to Lord of Mann in my (1971) Dod.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   MIME.
 Web  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
 Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
 Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In uk.net.news.management message
> <KJRGi.36991$mZ5.5456@newsfe6-win.ntli .net>, Sat, 15 Sep 2007
> 14:10:50, John Briggs  posted:
>> John Briggs wrote:
>>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5658.asp says:
>>>>
>>>> "The Queen also has other titles by which she is known in different
>>>> parts of Britain. In the Isle of Man, she is Lord of Man; in the
>>>> Channel Islands, she is Duke of Normandy; and in the land of the
>>>> Duchy of Lancaster, she is Duke of Lancaster."
>>>
>>> Well, she's wrong.
>>
>> It is demonstrably wrong, because it says "different parts of
>> Britain" - the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not "parts of
>> Britain".  It is more subtly  worded when it says "In the Isle of
>> Man, she is [known as] Lord of Man" - because "Lord of Man" is not
>> actually part of the Royal Titles - it is just one that happens to
>> be used in the Isle of Man itself.
>
> You may be using an inappropriate interpretation of "Britain"; the
> term seems not well defined.

"Britain" is short for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
Ireland" - and is used as such by the British government.

> The Isle of Man is certainly a part of the British Isles (like Cork),

Cork is not an island, but part of the main...

> and IoM & CI are parts of the British Islands, but they are not parts
> of Great Britain and therefore (being also not parts of Northern
> Ireland) not parts of the UK.

You know, the reasoning is not impeccable :-)

> Indeed, I could not find any reference to Lord of Mann in my (1971)
> Dod.

Well, that's all right then :-)
-- 
John Briggs

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In uk.net.news.management message
> <h66ne3du392p6tffaq0ir36dc79ji9u0de@4a x.com>, Sat, 15 Sep 2007
> 09:34:40, Anthony R. Gold <not-for- mail@ahjg.co.uk> posted:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:49:40 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> As a test, I just typed 'Lord of Mann' in my IE6 address bar
>>
>> The abilities of your browser or your DNS resolver are remarkable.
>
> Not very.  I just tried it in FireFox and Opera, and in each case
> directly reached <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Mann>.  That
> implies that there was no Lord of Mann in 1837-1901.

It is certainly confused - having correctly stated that the Lordship 
(Kingship) of Man existed in a position of feudality beneath the Crown, it 
then goes on to commit the howler of saying that Lady Strange sold the 
suzerainty - which is precisely what she did not.  The claimant doesn't seem 
to realise that there is no difference between the Lordship and (Under) 
Kingship.
-- 
John Briggs

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In uk.net.news.management message
> <opRGi.6940$gZ.942@newsfe7-win.ntli.ne t>, Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:49:08,
> John Briggs  posted:
>> Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>> In uk.net.news.management message
>>> <EPsGi.42560$6u5.7507@newsfe1-gui.ntli .net>, Fri, 14 Sep 2007
>>> 09:50:28, John Briggs  posted:
>>>> Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>>>> In uk.net.news.management message ,
>>>>> Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:00:20, Pete Fenelon 
>>>>> posted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to
>>>>>> the UK geographically
>>>>>
>>>>> All nearby parts of Her Majesty's Realm, for example that headed
>>>>> by the Lord of Mann, should undoubtedly be included,
>>>>> independently of whether they are in the EU.
>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands>.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell, the Lord of Mann is the Home Secretary.
>>>
>>> Your research and education are manifestly inadequate.
>>
>> Do you not think it possible that I might know more than  you?
>
> It is possible.  But the evidence is that you do not know much of that
> which I do know.  Granted, you probably know some things that I do
> not; for example, I verified a couple of nights ago that I understand
> very little spoken Japanese - you may be fluent in the language, for
> all I know.  Indeed, I admit not knowing whether you know Japanese -
> but presumably you know whether or not you are.
>
> It seems that you have not learned the difference between education
> and mere knowledge; and trivial research is needed to tell that the
> Lord of Mann is not the Home Secretary (through whom, however, much
> of the work may be done).

Careful, enlightenment may creep in unawares :-)

>>> As a test, I just typed 'Lord of Mann' in my IE6 address bar, and
>>> the answer (from a source likely to be right) was displayed in the
>>> first result.  The last result on the first page also showed the
>>> answer, from a source which Really Can Be Expected To Have Got It
>>> Right (the Manx PO).  Using '"Lord of Mann"' is even better.
>>
>> To whom did the last Lord of Man sell his office?
>
> The latest Lord of Mann (the spelling is unimportant) retains her
> office.
>
> The latest (probably only) sale of the office was by a woman.
> Strange, indeed.

Ho, ho! I bet you have them rolling in the aisles in Surrey - I must 
remember to avoid the place...
-- 
John Briggs

In uk.net.news.management message <R2_Gi.7102$gZ.1090@newsfe7-win.ntli.n
et>, Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:39:29, John Briggs 
posted:
>Dr J R Stockton wrote:

>> You may be using an inappropriate interpretation of "Britain"; the
>> term seems not well defined.
>
>"Britain" is short for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
>Ireland" - and is used as such by the British government.

Only when it does not choose to be precise.


>> The Isle of Man is certainly a part of the British Isles (like Cork),
>
>Cork is not an island, but part of the main...

You have interpreted "a part of the British Isles" as if it had been
"one of the British Isles".  Careless of you.

-- 
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ???@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   MIME.
 Web  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
     Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
    Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.

In article <QluGi.29336$ka7.19946@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John Briggs 
 writes
>The Queen is *Suzerain* of Mann.  The last Under-King (Lord) of Mann sold
>the office to the Home Office in 1765.  It is absurd to claim that the Queen
>is Lord of Mann, as that is a subordinate feudal position.

I won't claim to be an expert in feudal law, but I will note that it is 
not at all unknown for the same person to hold several feudal titles 
simultaneously.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
> In article <QluGi.29336$ka7.19946@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John Briggs
>  writes
>> The Queen is *Suzerain* of Mann.  The last Under-King (Lord) of Mann
>> sold the office to the Home Office in 1765.  It is absurd to claim
>> that the Queen is Lord of Mann, as that is a subordinate feudal
>> position.
>
> I won't claim to be an expert in feudal law, but I will note that it
> is not at all unknown for the same person to hold several feudal
> titles simultaneously.

Not ones subordinate to each other.
-- 
John Briggs

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:56:15 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

>Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
>> In article <QluGi.29336$ka7.19946@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John Briggs
>>  writes
>>> The Queen is *Suzerain* of Mann.  The last Under-King (Lord) of Mann
>>> sold the office to the Home Office in 1765.  It is absurd to claim
>>> that the Queen is Lord of Mann, as that is a subordinate feudal
>>> position.
>>
>> I won't claim to be an expert in feudal law, but I will note that it
>> is not at all unknown for the same person to hold several feudal
>> titles simultaneously.
>
>Not ones subordinate to each other.

Isn't the Duke of Lancaster subordinate to the Monarch? It's
not a rhetorical question, I don't know the answer but
assumed it to be the case.

And of course Brenda is the current Duke of Lancaster,
whether or not she's Lord of Mann.

Or am I writing bollocks? (again!)

-- 
John Bean

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:56:15 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

> Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
>> In article <QluGi.29336$ka7.19946@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John Briggs
>>  writes
>>> The Queen is *Suzerain* of Mann.  The last Under-King (Lord) of Mann
>>> sold the office to the Home Office in 1765.  It is absurd to claim
>>> that the Queen is Lord of Mann, as that is a subordinate feudal
>>> position.
>>
>> I won't claim to be an expert in feudal law, but I will note that it
>> is not at all unknown for the same person to hold several feudal
>> titles simultaneously.
>
> Not ones subordinate to each other.

I believe that is wrong.  You may have in mind the use of subordinate
titles and not the mere holding of them.

Tony

In article <j3tHi.2063$yN2.1984@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>, John Briggs 
 writes
>> I won't claim to be an expert in feudal law, but I will note that it
>> is not at all unknown for the same person to hold several feudal
>> titles simultaneously.
>Not ones subordinate to each other.

The Earldom of Wiltshire appears - to me - to be subordinate to the 
Marquessate of Winchester, yet they are held by the same person. As are 
the Dukedom of Montrose and the Marquessate of Montrose. Or, going back 
in time, the Marquessate of Cambridge used to be held by the Duke of 
Cambridge (and both, at one time, were held by George II). Meanwhile, it 
would appear that the Marquess of Tweeddale is also the Earl of 
Tweeddale and Baron Tweeddale.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:21:00 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
 wrote:

>Meanwhile, it 
>would appear that the Marquess of Tweeddale is also the Earl of 
>Tweeddale and Baron Tweeddale.

Got to be true, you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried
:-)

-- 
John Bean

John Bean wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:56:15 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>> Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
>>> In article <QluGi.29336$ka7.19946@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John Briggs
>>>  writes
>>>> The Queen is *Suzerain* of Mann.  The last Under-King (Lord) of
>>>> Mann sold the office to the Home Office in 1765.  It is absurd to
>>>> claim that the Queen is Lord of Mann, as that is a subordinate
>>>> feudal position.
>>>
>>> I won't claim to be an expert in feudal law, but I will note that it
>>> is not at all unknown for the same person to hold several feudal
>>> titles simultaneously.
>>
>> Not ones subordinate to each other.
>
> Isn't the Duke of Lancaster subordinate to the Monarch? It's
> not a rhetorical question, I don't know the answer but
> assumed it to be the case.
>
> And of course Brenda is the current Duke of Lancaster,
> whether or not she's Lord of Mann.
>
> Or am I writing bollocks? (again!)

You are indeed.  The Duchy of Lancaster is in exactly the same position as 
the Lordship (Kingship) of Man - they have both reverted to the Crown, so 
there is no current occupant.  Another one that comes up is Lord High 
Admiral: this post reverted to Crown on 1 April 1964 when the Board of 
Admiralty was dissolved - but, despite what anyone might tell you, that 
doesn't make the Queen her own Lord High Admiral.  When the butler leaves 
Buckingham Palace before another one is appointed, does the Queen become 
Butler of Buckingham Palace?
-- 
John Briggs

Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:56:15 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>> Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
>>> In article <QluGi.29336$ka7.19946@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John Briggs
>>>  writes
>>>> The Queen is *Suzerain* of Mann.  The last Under-King (Lord) of
>>>> Mann sold the office to the Home Office in 1765.  It is absurd to
>>>> claim that the Queen is Lord of Mann, as that is a subordinate
>>>> feudal position.
>>>
>>> I won't claim to be an expert in feudal law, but I will note that it
>>> is not at all unknown for the same person to hold several feudal
>>> titles simultaneously.
>>
>> Not ones subordinate to each other.
>
> I believe that is wrong.  You may have in mind the use of subordinate
> titles and not the mere holding of them.

I shall deny that empatically - putting the ball back in your court :-)
-- 
John Briggs

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
> In article <j3tHi.2063$yN2.1984@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>, John Briggs
>  writes
>>> I won't claim to be an expert in feudal law, but I will note that it
>>> is not at all unknown for the same person to hold several feudal
>>> titles simultaneously.
>> Not ones subordinate to each other.
>
> The Earldom of Wiltshire appears - to me - to be subordinate to the
> Marquessate of Winchester, yet they are held by the same person. As
> are the Dukedom of Montrose and the Marquessate of Montrose. Or,
> going back in time, the Marquessate of Cambridge used to be held by
> the Duke of Cambridge (and both, at one time, were held by George
> II). Meanwhile, it would appear that the Marquess of Tweeddale is
> also the Earl of Tweeddale and Baron Tweeddale.

Two points:

1) Those are separate titles, i.e. they are independent of each other.  (I 
would point out that the Duke of Devonshire is not the same person as the 
Earl of Devon.)

2) There is no feudal relationship bewteen those titles: the Earl of 
Wiltshire would not be a vassal of the Marquess of Winchester even if they 
were different people.  In fact,  there don't seem to be any feudal 
relationships at all, anymore.  The last person to have one would have been 
the Prince Bishop of Durham.

3) George II was made Duke of Cambridge before his father inherited the 
throne.  When his father inherited the throne, he (the future George II) 
automatically became Duke of Cornwall as well.  When he inherited the 
throne, the Dukedom of Cambridge ceased to exist, i.e. it reverted to the 
Crown.

Er, make that three points :-)
-- 
John Briggs

John Bean wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:21:00 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
>  wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, it
>> would appear that the Marquess of Tweeddale is also the Earl of
>> Tweeddale and Baron Tweeddale.
>
> Got to be true, you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried
> :-)

Why?

Take Major-General Sir Arthur Wellesley, who, as victories piled up, became 
Lieutenant-General Viscount Wellington, then General The Earl of Wellington, 
General The Marquess of Wellington, and finally Field Marshal The Duke of 
Wellington.  (This was before the Battle of Waterloo: there was nowhere 
further for him to go, win or lose!)

Ranks of the peerage are just that: ranks.
-- 
John Briggs

At 16:40:16 on Mon, 17 Sep 2007, John Briggs  
wrote in <Q5yHi.32809$Db6.23370@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>:

>In fact,  there don't seem to be any feudal
>relationships at all, anymore.  The last person to have one would have been
>the Prince Bishop of Durham.

errm ... the Seigneur of Sark?

(My sincere apologies for having the temerity to mix in on this thread 
when I clearly fail to have a first name with the initial J.)
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

"Molly Mockford"  wrote in message 
news:Q9X5mLH7Jt7GFwLR@molly.mockford...
> At 16:40:16 on Mon, 17 Sep 2007, John Briggs  
> wrote in <Q5yHi.32809$Db6.23370@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>:
>
>>In fact,  there don't seem to be any feudal
>>relationships at all, anymore.  The last person to have one would have 
>>been
>>the Prince Bishop of Durham.
>
> errm ... the Seigneur of Sark?
>
> (My sincere apologies for having the temerity to mix in on this thread 
> when I clearly fail to have a first name with the initial J.)
> -- 
> Molly


And, more to the point of the thread title, are any of these people going to 
be invited in as Infrastructure Members!

BigAl

Molly Mockford wrote:
> At 16:40:16 on Mon, 17 Sep 2007, John Briggs
>  wrote in
> <Q5yHi.32809$Db6.23370@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>:
>> In fact,  there don't seem to be any feudal
>> relationships at all, anymore.  The last person to have one would
>> have been the Prince Bishop of Durham.
>
> errm ... the Seigneur of Sark?
>
> (My sincere apologies for having the temerity to mix in on this thread
> when I clearly fail to have a first name with the initial J.)

We could call you Jolly for the juration.


-- 
  jat
          >^..^<

Molly Mockford wrote:
> At 16:40:16 on Mon, 17 Sep 2007, John Briggs
>  wrote in
> <Q5yHi.32809$Db6.23370@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>:
>> In fact,  there don't seem to be any feudal
>> relationships at all, anymore.  The last person to have one would
>> have been the Prince Bishop of Durham.
>
> errm ... the Seigneur of Sark?
>
> (My sincere apologies for having the temerity to mix in on this thread
> when I clearly fail to have a first name with the initial J.)

OK, I should have said "in England" or possibly "in the UK" - but Sark is in 
neither.  In any case, I understand his Seigneurial powers are to be 
terminated.
-- 
John Briggs

In article <4hasEhjsTc6GFwXH@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>, Dr J R 
Stockton  writes
>>I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to the UK
>>geographically
>All nearby parts of Her Majesty's Realm, for example that headed by the
>Lord of Mann, should undoubtedly be included, independently of whether
>they are in the EU. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands>.

While not wanting to revisit the rathole this has gone down, I would 
note that "UK" here clearly means the same as it does in the rest of the 
UK Usenet documents, whatever that may be.

>When such a Member becomes ineligible, perhaps by collapse of employer
>or retirement, ISTM that it would be right for the resignation to be
>tendered.  But I suggest that the Member should generally then be asked
>to continue to serve until a new Member becomes effective.  He may have
>lost influence, but he will still have expertise.

It was felt that it was better to leave this to the practical discretion 
of the Committee than to try to codify transitional arrangements in such 
a situation.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article , Wm... 
 writes
>>>I may have missed a word but are Infrastructure Members defined in 
>>>the doc?  I may have just missed it and it is there.
>>
>>Well, it's defined by usage, the same as Open Member is at present:
>>
>>    The Committee shall include, as Infrastructure Members, up to 4
>>    people who are involved in the provision of Usenet infrastructure
>>    in the UK. Each Infrastructure Member shall be a person who [...]
>
>All self referential, surely?

No.

>A blob is a person involved in blobbing; each blob, etc. (it could have 
>been blah or summat, no offence to blobs)

No, because the concept of "Usenet infrastructure" is not dependent on 
the meaning of "Infrastructure Member". The term "infrastructure" has a 
clear meaning, and "Usenet" and "in the UK" then qualify it.

>I don't know what you mean by Infrastructure and don't know how anyone 
>else could know what you (plural) mean without you explaining it a bit 
>more.

Hmm: infrastructure is the hardware, software, and networking systems 
directly involved in the provision - in this case - of Usenet in the UK. 
Thus it would not include LINX or the staff who operate routers, since 
these are only indirectly involved. It would involve the people who run 
news servers or write news server software.

It's not clear to me that an explicit definition of infrastructure is 
needed; make it too detailed and you prevent adaptation to changes in 
how things are done, while make it too loose and you haven't helped. But 
perhaps others have an opinion on this.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article , Percy Picacity 
<key@under.the.invalid> writes
>>>P.S. Please try to think of another word, folks!  I now you
>>>probaby thought long and hard and *then* came up with
>>>Infrastructure but it is ugly.
>> Do you have a better suggestion?
>How about "Industry"? Or "Industrial"?  Or even "Industrious"??

This sort of implies paid rather than anything else. If someone writes a 
new news server package in their own time and that package is adopted by 
a number of providers, do they come under the heading of "Industry"?

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:03:38  
uk.net.news.management Clive D. W. Feather 


>It's not clear to me that an explicit definition of infrastructure is 
>needed; make it too detailed and you prevent adaptation to changes in 
>how things are done, while make it too loose and you haven't helped. 
>But perhaps others have an opinion on this.

I am pleased you have tried to drag this back on topic.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Adult Book - Malcolm Knox
Locas, The Maggie and Hopey Stories - Jaime Hernandez

On Monday, in article
     
     not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk "Anthony R. Gold" wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:56:15 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
> 
> > Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
> >> In article <QluGi.29336$ka7.19946@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, John Briggs
> >>  writes
> >>> The Queen is *Suzerain* of Mann.  The last Under-King (Lord) of Mann
> >>> sold the office to the Home Office in 1765.  It is absurd to claim
> >>> that the Queen is Lord of Mann, as that is a subordinate feudal
> >>> position.
> >>
> >> I won't claim to be an expert in feudal law, but I will note that it
> >> is not at all unknown for the same person to hold several feudal
> >> titles simultaneously.
> >
> > Not ones subordinate to each other.
> 
> I believe that is wrong.  You may have in mind the use of subordinate
> titles and not the mere holding of them.

I'm sure the Dukes of Normandy and Lancaster would have something to say 
about this.

Of course when the same person does hold two feudal titles in the same 
chain of command, it can matter rather a lot which hat, or crown, 
they're wearing. Didn't the Black Prince use one of his minor titles 
when jousting, so that nobody was trying to knock the King's son off his 
horse?

-- 
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was 
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.

"Clive D. W. Feather"  wrote in
news:tsHTNuItOr7GFwN3@romana.davros.org: 

> In article , Percy
> Picacity 
><key@under.the.invalid> writes
>>>>P.S. Please try to think of another word, folks!  I now you
>>>>probaby thought long and hard and *then* came up with
>>>>Infrastructure but it is ugly.
>>> Do you have a better suggestion?
>>How about "Industry"? Or "Industrial"?  Or even "Industrious"??
> 
> This sort of implies paid rather than anything else. If someone
> writes a new news server package in their own time and that
> package is adopted by a number of providers, do they come under
> the heading of "Industry"? 
> 

I think "Industry" has about the same implications as 
"infrastructure".      For instance, I don't see how LINX gets 
logically excluded; though I agree they would probably be regarded 
as peripheral to the issues the Committee was likely to be dealing 
with, they definitely provide important infrastructure.  They are 
also part of the relevant industry.  A representative would probably 
be paid, as it is rare for volunteers to be appointed to responsible 
positions (unless, like Lord Sainsbury, they purchase them).  I just 
don't like "infrastructure".  But then I suspect that the only point 
in the RFD is that we haven't had one for a long time.

-- 
Percy Picacity

In <Q9X5mLH7Jt7GFwLR@molly.mockford> Molly Mockford  writes:

>errm ... the Seigneur of Sark?

Who is undoubtedly a Vassal of the Duke of Normandy.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

"Clive D. W. Feather"  wrote in
news:Zg$TGEEIiU6GFwyj@romana.davros.org: 

> In article , Pete Fenelon 
> writes
>>I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to
>>the UK geographically - I would hope that major providers (by
>>volume of traffic on uk.*) are invited to suggest candidates -
>>e.g. news.indiviual.net 
> 
> There's no written restriction on the location of members or
> relevant organisations; who the Committee wish to pick will be up
> to them. 
> 

I should like to support this sensible proposal.  Apart from the name 
(which has connotations of NuLab management-speak), about which I do 
not feel strongly, I can think of no major improvements.


-- 
Percy Picacity

Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <Q9X5mLH7Jt7GFwLR@molly.mockford> Molly Mockford
>  writes:
>
>> errm ... the Seigneur of Sark?
>
> Who is undoubtedly a Vassal of the Duke of Normandy.

"Undoubtedly" may be putting it a little strongly :-)

But I haven't had a chance to read the Treaty of Amiens...
-- 
John Briggs

"Clive D.W. Feather"  wrote in message 
news:rfd1-committee-elections-2007-20070912200835$78b9@gradwell.net...

> RATIONALE
>
> The concept of "permanent member" carries much less relevance to UK Usenet
> than it did when it was set up.

I believe I've said this a number of times before in the last 10 years. You 
were the most vocal opponent, well, apart from Mayall maybe.

Anyway, you'd better hope it goes through on a fast-track. I've recently 
brought up the issue of the 2007 "call for nominations" in the votetakers 
mailing list, as it needs to be out by the end of the month andno-one 
appears to be listening (although I have just managed to let Jon know, in 
case there is a problem with the list).

David Mahon wrote:
> "Clive D.W. Feather"  wrote in message
> news:rfd1-committee-elections-2007-20070912200835$78b9@gradwell.net...
>
>> RATIONALE
>>
>> The concept of "permanent member" carries much less relevance to UK
>> Usenet than it did when it was set up.
>
> I believe I've said this a number of times before in the last 10
> years. You were the most vocal opponent, well, apart from Mayall
> maybe.
> Anyway, you'd better hope it goes through on a fast-track. I've
> recently brought up the issue of the 2007 "call for nominations" in
> the votetakers mailing list, as it needs to be out by the end of the
> month andno-one appears to be listening (although I have just managed
> to let Jon know, in case there is a problem with the list).

I know Chris emailed UKV about this, but he'd had no reply.  Seems like 
there is some problem somewhere.


-- 
  kat
          >^..^<

On 2007-09-21, kat  wrote:
> I know Chris emailed UKV about this, but he'd had no reply.  Seems like 
> there is some problem somewhere.

I've been very busy I'm afraid. There's possibly some problem with the
mailing list, but today I've emailed all the UKVoting members directly
and I'll see if we can get this sorted.

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:21:44  
uk.net.news.management Percy Picacity <key@under.the.invalid>

>"Clive D. W. Feather"  wrote in
>news:Zg$TGEEIiU6GFwyj@romana.davros.org:
>
>> In article , Pete Fenelon
>> writes
>>>I assume that infrastructure membership will not be confined to
>>>the UK geographically - I would hope that major providers (by
>>>volume of traffic on uk.*) are invited to suggest candidates -
>>>e.g. news.indiviual.net
>>
>> There's no written restriction on the location of members or
>> relevant organisations; who the Committee wish to pick will be up
>> to them.
>>
>
>I should like to support this sensible proposal.  Apart from the name
>(which has connotations of NuLab management-speak), about which I do
>not feel strongly, I can think of no major improvements.

Same here.  I don't like the word but support the RFD as a whole.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Adult Book - Malcolm Knox
Locas, The Maggie and Hopey Stories - Jaime Hernandez

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:39:40  
uk.net.news.management Clive D. W. Feather 


Wm:
>>P.S. Please try to think of another word, folks!  I now you probaby 
>>thought long and hard and *then* came up with Infrastructure but it is 
>>ugly.
>
>Do you have a better suggestion?

Community?

The above as a last aside.

Apart from folk wandering off into the outer bits of what uk is and who 
Brenda owns, etc. has anyone asked about anything other than the name?

If not it seems fairly solid for a late summer proposal to me.

I'll be mildly grumpy about Infrastructure but suspect it will grow on 
me through usage.

I say move on.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Adult Book - Malcolm Knox
Locas, The Maggie and Hopey Stories - Jaime Hernandez

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:03:38 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
 wrote in
:

>Hmm: infrastructure is the hardware, software, and networking systems 
>directly involved in the provision - in this case - of Usenet in the UK. 
>Thus it would not include LINX or the staff who operate routers, since 
>these are only indirectly involved. It would involve the people who run 
>news servers or write news server software.
>
>It's not clear to me that an explicit definition of infrastructure is 
>needed; make it too detailed and you prevent adaptation to changes in 
>how things are done, while make it too loose and you haven't helped. But 
>perhaps others have an opinion on this.

I think this captures the key points. The idea is to have some people
who know how the technology actually works and is operated in practice.
Given that these members will be appointed by the committee, provided
that we elect open members who understand the intent, the label and
description need only be good enough to avoid too much nit-picking and
pointless arguments over trivia.

I support the proposal and am happy with the 'infrastructure member'
label since nobody has come up with anything that I would consider to be
obviously better. If someone does think of a better label then that is
fine too.

-- 
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

In  Percy Picacity <key@under.the.invalid> writes:

>I should like to support this sensible proposal.  Apart from the name 
>(which has connotations of NuLab management-speak), about which I do 
>not feel strongly, I can think of no major improvements.

Yes, I agree with that. But when the Committee looked at this we could not
come up with anything better. But if this group can think of something
both appropriate and 'smooth', then that would be fine. So get thinking,
everybody (and yes, I already tried Roget and, as usual, found that he
just did not understand the problem :-( ).

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

"Wm..."  wrote in message 
news:FrNwDFPoDE9GFwod@[127.0.0.1]...
> Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:39:40  
> uk.net.news.management Clive D. W. Feather 
> 
>
> Wm:
>>>P.S. Please try to think of another word, folks!  I now you probaby 
>>>thought long and hard and *then* came up with Infrastructure but it is 
>>>ugly.
>>
>>Do you have a better suggestion?
>
> Community?

How about "Elected" members and "Appointed" members? Perhaps subject to the 
proviso that an outgoing Elected member cannot be Appointed the following 
year (it wouldn't do to have someone voted off the committee then appointed 
by his remaining friends the following year).

Mind you, the death of usenet that has been talked about for the past 10 
years does seem to be fast approaching - maybe no-one cares anymore.

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:13:43 +0100, "David Mahon" 
wrote:

> How about "Elected" members and "Appointed" members? Perhaps subject to the 
> proviso that an outgoing Elected member cannot be Appointed the following 
> year (it wouldn't do to have someone voted off the committee then appointed 
> by his remaining friends the following year).

Why would it not do?

Apparently people will be invited to an appointed membership on account of
their technical knowledge or their influence within another organization.
How are those qualifications diminished by having lost an election?  Also,
some of these appointed members are to nominated by ISPs or other bodies.
Could those organizations' nominations be refused under this suggestion?

Secondly, I suggest that any such issue is left to the discretion of the
Committee.

But firstly I see no need for appointed Committee Members of any kind.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:a4p9f3p7qkk0q5smjsdpvogp244se09bhj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:13:43 +0100, "David Mahon" 
> wrote:
>
>> How about "Elected" members and "Appointed" members? Perhaps subject to 
>> the
>> proviso that an outgoing Elected member cannot be Appointed the following
>> year (it wouldn't do to have someone voted off the committee then 
>> appointed
>> by his remaining friends the following year).
>
> Why would it not do?
>
> Apparently people will be invited to an appointed membership on account of
> their technical knowledge or their influence within another organization.
> How are those qualifications diminished by having lost an election?  Also,

Their qualifications aren't dimished, but if an electorate has said they 
don't want them it seems churlish to then appoint them. Especially as 
elected committee members serve for 3 years and an "old guard" could outvote 
any new elected members when deciding on appointments. Of course, an 
electorate might not say it doesn't want specific people - they might simply 
finish fourth in an election of three. Unfortunately the voting procedures 
make no distinction between someone who is not wanted and someone who is 
simply less preferred (there is no "None of the above" candidate).

Rather than excluding a retiring elected member from appointment in the 
following year it would perhaps be better to exclude anyone who stood (and 
failed) as a candidate in the election from appointment the following year - 
but especially a retiring committee member who stood and was not re-elected, 
as that would appear to show that the electorate wanted change.

> But firstly I see no need for appointed Committee Members of any kind.

I think my posting history shows that I agree with that sentiment entirely.

On Friday, in article 
     chl@clerew.man.ac.uk "Charles Lindsey" wrote:

> In  Percy Picacity
>  <key@under.the.invalid> writes:
> 
> >I should like to support this sensible proposal.  Apart from the name 
> >(which has connotations of NuLab management-speak), about which I do 
> >not feel strongly, I can think of no major improvements.
> 
> Yes, I agree with that. But when the Committee looked at this we could not
> come up with anything better. But if this group can think of something
> both appropriate and 'smooth', then that would be fine. So get thinking,
> everybody (and yes, I already tried Roget and, as usual, found that he
> just did not understand the problem :-( ).

While "infrastructure" as the label for the class of member seems hard 
to replace, I note that the descriptive paragraph uses "service" or 
"services" more often. "Usenet infrastructure" looks clumsy, when it is 
used, and to me it seems biased towards specialised physical hardware, 
and the software running on it. "Usenet services" has a sense that 
encompasses the flow of usenet data over the whole of the internet, 
which seems to me to include the vital issues surrounding traffic 
shaping by ISPs: my experience includes an ISP killing all Usenet access 
at peak times, including access to their own Usenet server.

I don't expect anyone on the committee to resort to stupid hair- 
splitting about such linguistic subtleties, but I think it may be worth 
making it clear that there's more to Usenet than the server systems. 
Sometimes, I wish the committee would empower some A-team of BFOH types 
"to take such steps as might be necessary for the resumption of traffic, 
and all that that implies."


-- 
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was 
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.

Charles Lindsey  wrote:
> Yes, I agree with that. But when the Committee looked at this we could not
> come up with anything better. But if this group can think of something
> both appropriate and 'smooth', then that would be fine. So get thinking,
> everybody (and yes, I already tried Roget and, as usual, found that he
> just did not understand the problem :-( ).

"Working members" (analogous to "Working peers" in the House of Lords,
and to distinguish themselves from "Self-important showboating members"
(aka "tenner a month punters who think their opinions matter"). 

uk.* doesn't need elected members on the committee. It needs to be a
well-run benevolent dictatorship.

pete
-- 
pete@fenelon.com "how many clever men have called the sun a fool?"