Has the proponent for uk.rec.cycling.moderated spent too much time 
discussing things with Control?

First RFD was 2009-06-01 + 10 days

It is now 2009-06-16 so even with some leeway something isn't going 
according to plan.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:00:04 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Has the proponent for uk.rec.cycling.moderated spent too much time 
>discussing things with Control?
>
>First RFD was 2009-06-01 + 10 days
>
>It is now 2009-06-16 so even with some leeway something isn't going 
>according to plan.

Everything is fine. 10 days is a minimum period.  I'm sure a 2nd RFD
will be along shortly.

In message , at 12:00:04 on Tue, 16 Jun 
2009, Wm...  wibbled
>
>Has the proponent for uk.rec.cycling.moderated spent too much time 
>discussing things with Control?
>
>First RFD was 2009-06-01 + 10 days
>
>It is now 2009-06-16 so even with some leeway something isn't going 
>according to plan.
>
10 days is the *minimum* discussion period not *the* discussion period.

Just sit back, relax and twiddle your thumbs. You'll no doubt have a 2nd 
RFD to pick over in due course.

-- 
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

In uk.net.news.management on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:00:04 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

}It is now 2009-06-16 so even with some leeway something isn't going 
}according to plan.

You have trouble reading the rules.

Fuckwit.

Yet another group to killfile Wm... in :(

{R}

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:21:29  
uk.net.news.management Geoff Berrow 

>On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:00:04 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>Has the proponent for uk.rec.cycling.moderated spent too much time
>>discussing things with Control?
>>
>>First RFD was 2009-06-01 + 10 days
>>
>>It is now 2009-06-16 so even with some leeway something isn't going
>>according to plan.
>
>Everything is fine. 10 days is a minimum period.  I'm sure a 2nd RFD
>will be along shortly.

===
From: Ian Jackson 
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
Subject: Re: RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Date: 10 Jun 2009 11:04:08 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <yay*gf+Is@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
===

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:59:45 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>>Everything is fine. 10 days is a minimum period.  I'm sure a 2nd RFD
>>will be along shortly.
>
>===
>From: Ian Jackson 
>Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
>Subject: Re: RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>Date: 10 Jun 2009 11:04:08 +0100 (BST)
>Message-ID: <yay*gf+Is@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>===


Which should have made it obvious, even to you, that some discussion
was going on about the format of the 2nd RFD.

What's the problem?

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:47:26  
uk.net.news.management Geoff Berrow 

>On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:59:45 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>>Everything is fine. 10 days is a minimum period.  I'm sure a 2nd RFD
>>>will be along shortly.
>>
>>===
>>From: Ian Jackson 
>>Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
>>Subject: Re: RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>Date: 10 Jun 2009 11:04:08 +0100 (BST)
>>Message-ID: <yay*gf+Is@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>>===
>
>
>Which should have made it obvious, even to you, that some discussion
>was going on about the format of the 2nd RFD.
>
>What's the problem?

The proponent may be proving difficult or Control may not be responding 
fast enough.

I don't know which it is.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:37:57 +0100, Wm... put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:47:26  
>uk.net.news.management Geoff Berrow 
>
>>On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:59:45 +0100, "Wm..."
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>Everything is fine. 10 days is a minimum period.  I'm sure a 2nd RFD
>>>>will be along shortly.
>>>
>>>===
>>>From: Ian Jackson 
>>>Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling
>>>Subject: Re: RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>>Date: 10 Jun 2009 11:04:08 +0100 (BST)
>>>Message-ID: <yay*gf+Is@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>>>===
>>
>>
>>Which should have made it obvious, even to you, that some discussion
>>was going on about the format of the 2nd RFD.
>>
>>What's the problem?
>
>The proponent may be proving difficult or Control may not be responding 
>fast enough.

Or, the proponent is discussing the matter with various people, not
all of whom are available to respond to emails instantly. Everyone
involved in the process has a day job, several of them are not in a
position to give much attention to non-work emails while at work, and
maybe one or two of them even have a life. These kind of discussions
typically take several days or even a couple of weeks; that's simply
the nature of how it is.

>I don't know which it is.

Obviously.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:07:10 
 
uk.net.news.management Mark Goodge 

GeoffB:
>>>What's the problem?
>>
>>The proponent may be proving difficult or Control may not be responding
>>fast enough.
>
>Or, the proponent is discussing the matter with various people, not
>all of whom are available to respond to emails instantly. Everyone
>involved in the process has a day job, several of them are not in a
>position to give much attention to non-work emails while at work, and
>maybe one or two of them even have a life. These kind of discussions
>typically take several days or even a couple of weeks; that's simply
>the nature of how it is.

For a plain old 2nd RFD?

>>I don't know which it is.
>
>Obviously.

It is an amusing set of ORs, when did we last need that many?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:13:39 +0100, Wm... put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:07:10 
> 
>uk.net.news.management Mark Goodge 
>
>GeoffB:
>>>>What's the problem?
>>>
>>>The proponent may be proving difficult or Control may not be responding
>>>fast enough.
>>
>>Or, the proponent is discussing the matter with various people, not
>>all of whom are available to respond to emails instantly. Everyone
>>involved in the process has a day job, several of them are not in a
>>position to give much attention to non-work emails while at work, and
>>maybe one or two of them even have a life. These kind of discussions
>>typically take several days or even a couple of weeks; that's simply
>>the nature of how it is.
>
>For a plain old 2nd RFD?

Why not? 

In any case, you seem to be under some kind of misapprehension that
time is of the essence when it comes to newsgroup creation. On the
contrary, it is, and always has been, a fairly slow and drawn-out
process in the cast majority of cases. It's not unusual for these
discussions to go on for weeks behind the scenes. A discussion lasting
a few days is entirely unremarkable.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:49:24 
 
uk.net.news.management Mark Goodge 

>On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:13:39 +0100, Wm... put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:07:10
>>
>>uk.net.news.management Mark Goodge 
>>
>>GeoffB:
>>>>>What's the problem?
>>>>
>>>>The proponent may be proving difficult or Control may not be responding
>>>>fast enough.
>>>
>>>Or, the proponent is discussing the matter with various people, not
>>>all of whom are available to respond to emails instantly. Everyone
>>>involved in the process has a day job, several of them are not in a
>>>position to give much attention to non-work emails while at work, and
>>>maybe one or two of them even have a life. These kind of discussions
>>>typically take several days or even a couple of weeks; that's simply
>>>the nature of how it is.
>>
>>For a plain old 2nd RFD?
>
>Why not?
>
>In any case, you seem to be under some kind of misapprehension that
>time is of the essence when it comes to newsgroup creation.

Time is actually important.  It seems a pity to waste it.

> On the
>contrary, it is, and always has been, a fairly slow and drawn-out
>process in the cast majority of cases. It's not unusual for these
>discussions to go on for weeks behind the scenes. A discussion lasting
>a few days is entirely unremarkable.

I agree.  Now count the days since the proponent suggested a 2nd RFD 
should have appeared.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days