On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:57:04 +0000, John Hall
 wrote:

>>The committee could be more active in persuading users to propose
>>groups or rm groups.
>
>Boggle! You think that the committee should tell the users what they
>(the users) ought to do? I'm totally opposed to the committee doing
>that. It might give them delusions of grandeur. :)

Is the committe not already telling users what they ought to do with
reference to group creation?

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:36:39 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>Is the committe not already telling users what they ought to do with
>reference to group creation?

Interesting that your spell checker did not try to change committe to
committed.
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:27:01 +0000, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>>Is the committe not already telling users what they ought to do with
>>reference to group creation?
>
>Interesting that your spell checker did not try to change committe to
>committed.

I'm not using a spell checker - I mostly don't need to.  There is a
problem with the keyboard where the second 'e' isn't caught if I press
it too quickly.  I apologise if my failing to pick this up when it
happens detracts from the meaning of my posts.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:41:36 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>>Interesting that your spell checker did not try to change committe to
>>committed.
>
>I'm not using a spell checker - I mostly don't need to.  There is a
>problem with the keyboard where the second 'e' isn't caught if I press
>it too quickly. 

You're not the only person with that problem.
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:36:39 +0000, Cherry Chapstick put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:57:04 +0000, John Hall
> wrote:
>
>>>The committee could be more active in persuading users to propose
>>>groups or rm groups.
>>
>>Boggle! You think that the committee should tell the users what they
>>(the users) ought to do? I'm totally opposed to the committee doing
>>that. It might give them delusions of grandeur. :)
>
>Is the committe not already telling users what they ought to do with
>reference to group creation?

The comittee has the power to veto a proposal for a group with an
unsuitable name or an unsuitable charter. So, up to a point, it can
tell people what *not* to do. But it doesn't have any power to make
proposals of its own[1]. So if anyone wants to change something, they
have to make the proposal themself as an individual; the committee
never makes proposals under its own name or makes any formal policy
decision to support a proposal.

[1] Which is a good thing, if you think about it. Since the committee
can veto unsuitable proposals, if it was also able to make proposals
then there would be a conflict of interest if someone complained that
a committee proposal was unsuitable - the committee would, in effect,
have to make a formal ruling on a complaint about its own proposal,
which is hardly democratic. If a committee member wants to make a
proposal on their own behalf as an individual, then established
procedure is that they don't take part in any committee discussions or
internal votes related to the proposal's acceptibility under the
guidelines.

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

In uk.net.news.management, Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really>
wrote:

>On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:57:04 +0000, John Hall
> wrote:
>
>>>The committee could be more active in persuading users to propose
>>>groups or rm groups.
>>
>>Boggle! You think that the committee should tell the users what they
>>(the users) ought to do? I'm totally opposed to the committee doing
>>that. It might give them delusions of grandeur. :)
>
>Is the committe not already telling users what they ought to do with
>reference to group creation?

No it's not.

How is it not clear?

The uk.* users propose new groups, changes to existing ones, or removal of
unused ones.  The uk.* users then discuss and vote on that.

The committee is there to ensure the process is followed.
UK Voting are there to provide a vote counting service.

But the whole thing is driven by us.

They of course, are also us, so as individuals they can (do, and have in
the past) proposed stuff.  But the committee doesn't.

In the past, attempts by the committee and readers of unn.* to 'involve'
all groups in the uk.* hierarchy have met with significant opposition from
those groups.  I am thinking specifically of an attempt to post charters to
all groups, but my memory is hazy on the specifics.  Sometimes I wish I'd
kept a newspool spanning my entire usenet history.

Anyone got uk.* over the last 10-15 years?

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:54:46 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

>>Is the committe not already telling users what they ought to do with
>>reference to group creation?
>
>No it's not.
>
>How is it not clear?

It is clear that the committee can, for example, refuse or allow
objections to fast track RFDs for the creation of groups - some
guidelines are given as to what are valid objections.  There are no
guidelines given to as to on what grounds the committee can refuse to
fast track RFDs for rmgrouping or reshaping the uk.* structure. 

Control, who issues the instructions does so on the command of the
committee.

In uk.net.news.management, Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really>
wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:54:46 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>>Is the committe not already telling users what they ought to do with
>>>reference to group creation?
>>
>>No it's not.
>>
>>How is it not clear?
>
>It is clear that the committee can, for example, refuse or allow
>objections to fast track RFDs for the creation of groups - some
>guidelines are given as to what are valid objections.  There are no
>guidelines given to as to on what grounds the committee can refuse to
>fast track RFDs for rmgrouping or reshaping the uk.* structure. 
>
>Control, who issues the instructions does so on the command of the
>committee.

In summary, the committee does what we ask them to do and they sure our
asking follows the process we all agreed on.

We expect them to be rational human beings and use their judgement rather
than having every single thing documented to the letter in order to allow
them to be more flexible.

And as such we try not to elect asshats.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:07:23 +0000, Cherry Chapstick put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:54:46 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>>Is the committe not already telling users what they ought to do with
>>>reference to group creation?
>>
>>No it's not.
>>
>>How is it not clear?
>
>It is clear that the committee can, for example, refuse or allow
>objections to fast track RFDs for the creation of groups - some
>guidelines are given as to what are valid objections.  There are no
>guidelines given to as to on what grounds the committee can refuse to
>fast track RFDs for rmgrouping or reshaping the uk.* structure. 
>
>Control, who issues the instructions does so on the command of the
>committee.

Fast tracks (on anything) are only allowed on "non-controversial"
proposals. Any fast track annuncement can be stymied by objections
from users of uk.*.

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

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:00:29 +0000, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>>>How is it not clear?
>>
>>It is clear that the committee can, for example, refuse or allow
>>objections to fast track RFDs for the creation of groups - some
>>guidelines are given as to what are valid objections.  There are no
>>guidelines given to as to on what grounds the committee can refuse to
>>fast track RFDs for rmgrouping or reshaping the uk.* structure. 
>>
>>Control, who issues the instructions does so on the command of the
>>committee.
>
>Fast tracks (on anything) are only allowed on "non-controversial"
>proposals. Any fast track annuncement can be stymied by objections
>from users of uk.*

Well, the committee has to judge whether or not those objections are
valid objections - and the guidelines on what are valid objections are
only given for the creation of groups, not removing them.  So,
essentially, a committee judging on objections to removal of groups is
defining the validity of those objections by their own personal
prejudices.

And then there's this: 

"Where 90 days have elapsed since the publication of the first RFD,
the committee may direct that no further RFDs shall be published, but
that the proposal shall either proceed to a vote within 40 days of the
present RFD or be withdrawn. Any vote resulting from such a decision
by the committee shall include the option ROD (re-open discussion).
Where the RFD is concerned with the committee constitution, and the
committee has not acted to curtail discussion within 130 days, the RFD
shall proceed as if the committee had done so."

The committee, it seems, can over-ride the discussion of RFDs.  This
could be used in a sort of usenet filibuster, continually sending an
RFD back for further discussion, or could be used to send an unfit RFD
to the vote, or can force an RFD to be withdrawn.

Hopefully, as the other commentator answering to my previous post has
pointed out, there will be no 'asshats' on the committee who would
misuse procedure in this way, but as I read it, it is perfectly
possible for the committe to 'do' stuff instead of just responding to
RFDs from the electorate. 

I don't know what my point is really, here.  I think it is that the
committee is not as without power as is being intimated; it is not as
objetive as it claims to be.    The engine behind the decisions made
by the committee can, in some instances, reside in the prejudices
inherent in the make up of the committee.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:03:17 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>"Where 90 days have elapsed since the publication of the first RFD,
>the committee may direct that no further RFDs shall be published, but
>that the proposal shall either proceed to a vote within 40 days of the
>present RFD or be withdrawn. Any vote resulting from such a decision
>by the committee shall include the option ROD (re-open discussion).
>Where the RFD is concerned with the committee constitution, and the
>committee has not acted to curtail discussion within 130 days, the RFD
>shall proceed as if the committee had done so."
>
>The committee, it seems, can over-ride the discussion of RFDs.  This
>could be used in a sort of usenet filibuster, continually sending an
>RFD back for further discussion, or could be used to send an unfit RFD
>to the vote, or can force an RFD to be withdrawn.

No, it's simply there to ensure that RFDs do not go on for ever, as
occasionally used to happen.
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:25:51 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

>>It is clear that the committee can, for example, refuse or allow
>>objections to fast track RFDs for the creation of groups - some
>>guidelines are given as to what are valid objections.  There are no
>>guidelines given to as to on what grounds the committee can refuse to
>>fast track RFDs for rmgrouping or reshaping the uk.* structure. 
>>
>>Control, who issues the instructions does so on the command of the
>>committee.
>
>In summary, the committee does what we ask them to do and they sure our
>asking follows the process we all agreed on.
>
>We expect them to be rational human beings and use their judgement rather
>than having every single thing documented to the letter in order to allow
>them to be more flexible.

I can quite understand that this is a reasonable assumption to be
made, and that any other assumption would make the guidelines
unworkable.

However, the guidelines are not specific on rmgrouping as they are on
creating groups.  

>And as such we try not to elect asshats.

Given some of the responses to me here  based on who I think would
make a good committee member or on the 'nym' I choose to use, it looks
like you have already elected asshats, or people who value the
contributers that asshats make to campaigning discussions in support
of them.

In  on Sun, 01 Nov
2009 16:03:17 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>I don't know what my point is really, here.

I don't see one. But that's never a problem, the picking of nits
is a perfectly acceptable pursuit with a long tradition in unn*

Knowing when to stop is a useful skill. If it helps, that's
usually about two posts before the lampooning starts.

-- 
DG

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:27:01 +0000, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:36:39 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
><azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
>
>>Is the committe not already telling users what they ought to do with
>>reference to group creation?
>
>Interesting that your spell checker did not try to change committe to
>committed.

Bugger - rumbled.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:41:36 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:27:01 +0000, Geoff Berrow
> wrote:
>
>>>Is the committe not already telling users what they ought to do with
>>>reference to group creation?
>>
>>Interesting that your spell checker did not try to change committe to
>>committed.
>
>I'm not using a spell checker - I mostly don't need to.  


Do you think that you are arrogant?

jms  wrote in
news:emere5tvv8gkdn6j70me9ki95dpl2v4lki@4ax.com: 

> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:41:36 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
><azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:27:01 +0000, Geoff Berrow
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>Is the committe not already telling users what they ought to do
>>>>with reference to group creation?
>>>
>>>Interesting that your spell checker did not try to change
>>>committe to committed.
>>
>>I'm not using a spell checker - I mostly don't need to.  
> 
> 
> Do you think that you are arrogant?

Those of us of a generation taught to spell are not arrogant:  it is 
just that we don't need spell checkers because we can spell nearly all 
the words we use and know when we can't.  Nothing clever, just 1950's 
primary schooling.


-- 
Percy Picacity

In uk.net.news.management, Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really>
wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:25:51 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
>wrote:

>>We expect them to be rational human beings and use their judgement rather
>>than having every single thing documented to the letter in order to allow
>>them to be more flexible.

>I can quite understand that this is a reasonable assumption to be
>made, and that any other assumption would make the guidelines
>unworkable.

>However, the guidelines are not specific on rmgrouping as they are on
>creating groups.  

Then RFD for change, if you perceive there to be a fault.  As a user of the
uk.* hierarchy that's in your court, and as a read of the uk.* hierarchy I
welcome constructive RFD's.

>>And as such we try not to elect asshats.

>Given some of the responses to me here  based on who I think would
>make a good committee member or on the 'nym' I choose to use, it looks
>like you have already elected asshats, or people who value the
>contributers that asshats make to campaigning discussions in support
>of them.

Your perception of what constitutes and asshat doesn't match mine.  This
should be obvious from my previous posts.  It doesn't however mean you're
right.  Of course, it doesn't mean I'm right either - but at least I admit
to that prospect and try and keep it in mind.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:27:01 +0000, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>>Is the committe not already telling users what they ought to do with
>>reference to group creation?
>
>Interesting that your spell checker did not try to change committe to
>committed.

I've just reread back through the 500+ posts I downloaded when I came
over here, initially, to try and warn that the vote I made was not
being accepted from the first email account I tried it from.

I now realise that you are referring to a conversation with jms
earlier on, and I suspect that you may suspect me of being her. 

I assure you, I am not.  I am now also suspecting that this suspicion
is common amongst people who have responded to me in these
discussions, which might explain some of the extremely unproductive
rudeness I've encountered from the likes of Molly Mockford.  It's fine
as it doesn't actually hurt me in any shape or form, but the whole
impression it gave me was that the 'insiders' in this group have
absolutely no interest in involving or having discussions with
outsiders. 

Now that I can see a reason for this behaviour my bad impressions may
be somewhat ameliorated, but I still retain the impression that a
large number of the regulars in this group don't give a fuck what the
users of uk.* actually do think. 

And I am extremely unimpressed by Kat.  I was hoping for a productive
discussion with her about what the guidelines actually do mean about
the influence that the members of the committee can have over groups
created and rmed - and I do still contend that the committee is not as
neutral is is claimed - but instead you got the sight of two
self-promoted queen bees crowing and preening each other in an orgy of
having ousted the woman they took against (even if they were doing it
to the wrong woman).

I am still interested in what can be done to tighten up the
guidelines, and I do think there is a case for tidying up the uk.*
hierarchy, having come across both those issues as a result of coming
here over problems with my voting form.  So I'll be sticking around. I
won't be involving myself in the social hierarchy games, though.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:58:41 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

>>However, the guidelines are not specific on rmgrouping as they are on
>>creating groups.  
>
>Then RFD for change, if you perceive there to be a fault.  As a user of the
>uk.* hierarchy that's in your court, and as a read of the uk.* hierarchy I
>welcome constructive RFD's.

Thank you.

In uk.net.news.management, Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really>
wrote:

>I am still interested in what can be done to tighten up the
>guidelines, and I do think there is a case for tidying up the uk.*
>hierarchy, having come across both those issues as a result of coming
>here over problems with my voting form.  So I'll be sticking around. I
>won't be involving myself in the social hierarchy games, though.

You mean the jokes?

Well it has become apparent that a lot of recent arrivals left their sense
of humour at home.

This is usenet.  Every group has a culture, those cultures vary.  If I were
to stick my head into cam.misc and start talking like I do in other groups,
I'd look like a dick (maybe I look like a dick here), and I would look
doubly-dickie[1] if I did it without a sense of humour.

Maybe you're being a little uptight.  Maybe you should try and understand
the culture.  Maybe people here are giving you a harder time than you're
used to (I doubt this), and maybe people here are giving you a harder time
than you deserve because of the ongoing events.

In any of those situations, I still think taking a step back and reading
with some more sense of humour might help.

[1] Trademarking that assuming no one else has.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:27:29 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

>>I am still interested in what can be done to tighten up the
>>guidelines, and I do think there is a case for tidying up the uk.*
>>hierarchy, having come across both those issues as a result of coming
>>here over problems with my voting form.  So I'll be sticking around. I
>>won't be involving myself in the social hierarchy games, though.
>
>You mean the jokes?

What jokes?

>Maybe you're being a little uptight.  Maybe you should try and understand
>the culture.  Maybe people here are giving you a harder time than you're
>used to (I doubt this), and maybe people here are giving you a harder time
>than you deserve because of the ongoing events.

I think you're mistaking me for somebody who is offended.

In uk.net.news.management, Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really>
wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:27:29 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>>I am still interested in what can be done to tighten up the
>>>guidelines, and I do think there is a case for tidying up the uk.*
>>>hierarchy, having come across both those issues as a result of coming
>>>here over problems with my voting form.  So I'll be sticking around. I
>>>won't be involving myself in the social hierarchy games, though.
>>
>>You mean the jokes?

>What jokes?

Thank you for making my point so clearly.

>>Maybe you're being a little uptight.  Maybe you should try and understand
>>the culture.  Maybe people here are giving you a harder time than you're
>>used to (I doubt this), and maybe people here are giving you a harder time
>>than you deserve because of the ongoing events.
>
>I think you're mistaking me for somebody who is offended.

No, you're the person who described Molly's response thus, "which might
explain some of the extremely unproductive rudeness I've encountered from
the likes of Molly Mockford".

I don't consider calling you an anonymous Dipstick rude, I thought it was
quite amusing in context.

Anyway, Molly was probably tanked up on g&t at the time, she probably meant
to say something like "we value your continued contribution to the uk.*
hierarchy, and welcome all constructive RFD's that we're sure you'll
produce any time soon".[1]

Or maybe she was frustrated because you didn't appear to be hearing what
has been said, and expressed that frustration in the manner she did.

Who knows.

[1] this is a joke, in case you or Molly don't get it.
-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:16:33 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>I've just reread back through the 500+ posts I downloaded when I came
>over here, initially, to try and warn that the vote I made was not
>being accepted from the first email account I tried it from.

You came here to alert the committee that your vote may not have been
successful.

>Now that I can see a reason for this behaviour my bad impressions may
>be somewhat ameliorated, but I still retain the impression that a
>large number of the regulars in this group don't give a fuck what the
>users of uk.* actually do think. 

Opinion is fine, not correct, but opinions are like that - everybody
has one (resist the obvious).

>I am still interested in what can be done to tighten up the
>guidelines, and I do think there is a case for tidying up the uk.*
>hierarchy, having come across both those issues as a result of coming
>here over problems with my voting form.  So I'll be sticking around. I
>won't be involving myself in the social hierarchy games, though.

Again, you say you came here to report what you thought may have been
a problem with the voting system.  How did you get your voting paper
in the first place?  In other words, were you pointed toward it by the
CFV posted in unnc, or in unna?

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:31:26 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>>You mean the jokes?
>
>What jokes?

Question:  Do you and your acquaintances within chiark believe it's
unreasonable for Neurotypicals to assume all posters have a sense of
humour?

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:31:26 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:27:29 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>>I am still interested in what can be done to tighten up the
>>>guidelines, and I do think there is a case for tidying up the uk.*
>>>hierarchy, having come across both those issues as a result of coming
>>>here over problems with my voting form.  So I'll be sticking around. I
>>>won't be involving myself in the social hierarchy games, though.
>>
>>You mean the jokes?
>
>What jokes?
>
>>Maybe you're being a little uptight.  Maybe you should try and understand
>>the culture.  Maybe people here are giving you a harder time than you're
>>used to (I doubt this), and maybe people here are giving you a harder time
>>than you deserve because of the ongoing events.
>
>I think you're mistaking me for somebody who is offended.


Do you mean me?

Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> said:


>
> Now that I can see a reason for this behaviour my bad impressions may
> be somewhat ameliorated, but I still retain the impression that a
> large number of the regulars in this group don't give a fuck what the
> users of uk.* actually do think.
>
> And I am extremely unimpressed by Kat.  I was hoping for a productive
> discussion with her about what the guidelines actually do mean about
> the influence that the members of the committee can have over groups
> created and rmed - and I do still contend that the committee is not as
> neutral is is claimed - but instead you got the sight of two
> self-promoted queen bees crowing and preening each other in an orgy of
> having ousted the woman they took against (even if they were doing it
> to the wrong woman).


Great start.  I don't really care how impressed or otherwise you might be 
with me, but you have assumed that I thought something about you.  I am glad 
you know my thoughts better than I do myself.

One.  I am not a bee.  My entire persona is based on something 4 legged. 
That part of me may belong outside of the business side of usenet, but as it 
is the name I am known by, it stays.

Two. Bees don't crow.  I am not sure who they ousted, either.

Three. I haven't taken against anyone.  Some people irritate me from time to 
time but my killfile is empty.

Four.  The committee has no influence over anything other than ensuring the 
rules are followed,  so there isn't much to discuss.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> said:


>
> Maybe you're being a little uptight.  Maybe you should try and
> understand the culture.  Maybe people here are giving you a harder
> time than you're used to (I doubt this), and maybe people here are
> giving you a harder time than you deserve because of the ongoing
> events.
>

When I first came here I felt the regulars - some of the regulars - gave me 
a hard time.  It was fun in an odd sort of way.  All down to what you are 
used to of course.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

In  on Sun, 1 Nov 2009
23:58:26 -0000, "kat"  wrote:

>When I first came here I felt the regulars - some of the regulars - gave me 
>a hard time.  It was fun in an odd sort of way.

Shite. If I'd known you liked it I'd have tried harder.

:)

-- 
DG

Dick Gaughan  said:

> In  on Sun, 1 Nov 2009
> 23:58:26 -0000, "kat"  wrote:
>
>> When I first came here I felt the regulars - some of the regulars -
>> gave me a hard time.  It was fun in an odd sort of way.
>
> Shite. If I'd known you liked it I'd have tried harder.
>
> :)

I didn't run away, did I - so I must have liked it. ;-)


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:16:33 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>I now realise that you are referring to a conversation with jms
>earlier on, and I suspect that you may suspect me of being her. 

Perish the thought.  One is enough.
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

Molly Mockford  said:

> At 23:58:26 on Sun, 1 Nov 2009, kat  wrote in
> :
>
>> When I first came here I felt the regulars - some of the regulars -
>> gave me a hard time.
>
> We did.  Not you personally, of course - but the Silversurfers in
> general, because they needed to make a case for their group, and
> initially that case appeared to be no more than "there's three
> thousand of us, and we're terminally cuddly" ;-)

I know it wasn't personal.  It was amusing to me in that we were being told 
usenet isn't flufffy, it's rough, as I had cut my teeth in an alt group that 
had far more rows in a few months than I have seen in years.  Of course, 
there were 3000 terminally cuddly supporters.  Anyone who thinks the uk* is 
a cesspit should spend a week in there.

>
>> It was fun in an odd sort of way.  All down to what you are used to
>> of course.
>
> It was indeed a fun and interesting discussion, and we all learned a
> lot during it.

I certainly did.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

"kat"  writes:

> When I first came here I felt the regulars - some of the regulars - gave me 
> a hard time.  It was fun in an odd sort of way.  All down to what you are 
> used to of course.

This point (or similar) has been made several times now. It's a
standard comment made about much of usenet -  "there's a community
here, we have ways of interacting with each other, if you don't like
that, this is probably not the place for you". I do wonder if it's the
best way to encourage more uk.* users to join in disucssion here,
though. 

Matthew

-- 
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org

Matthew Vernon  said:

> "kat"  writes:
>
>> When I first came here I felt the regulars - some of the regulars -
>> gave me a hard time.  It was fun in an odd sort of way.  All down to
>> what you are used to of course.
>
> This point (or similar) has been made several times now. It's a
> standard comment made about much of usenet -  "there's a community
> here, we have ways of interacting with each other, if you don't like
> that, this is probably not the place for you". I do wonder if it's the
> best way to encourage more uk.* users to join in disucssion here,
> though.
>


The ups thing took just about as long as urcm, and that was without the 
votetaker getting sick.  One good thing about that was it gave me time to 
study the posters and work them out.  The problem with unnc is that people 
come with a proposal, they don't do the lurk for a while thing, so I don't 
think it is.

I recall I couldn't understand why people were so unfriendly, it's possible 
to disagree with a pleasant tone, even in writing, but it felt like we were 
being badgered.  They didn't see themselves that way of course, merely as 
being businesslike I suppose.  There again I didn't see being called a 
fuckwit as businesslike.  I don't remember if it was aimed at me, or others 
who came to support the proposal, but it was said.

So, here I am in a weird position.  I am on the committee, and supposed to 
be businesslike, and according to some, have no opinions I should state in 
public, without a lot of care because my words will weigh more heavily, and 
according to others disagree loudly ( if I do disagree) with committee 
decisions.    If I lighten up it's an in joke.  If I don't no doubt I am 
giving others a hard time.:-)  I have even been accused to being too 
reasonable or words to that effect.  So you know - you can't win really.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:28:14 -0000, "kat" 
wrote:

>So, here I am in a weird position.  I am on the committee, and supposed to 
>be businesslike, and according to some, have no opinions I should state in 
>public, without a lot of care because my words will weigh more heavily, and 
>according to others disagree loudly ( if I do disagree) with committee 
>decisions.    If I lighten up it's an in joke.  If I don't no doubt I am 
>giving others a hard time.:-)  I have even been accused to being too 
>reasonable or words to that effect.  So you know - you can't win really.

Interesting to hear your thoughts on the silversurfers thing.  Yes,
I've long thought that we are in a 'you can't win' situation.  After a
while you stop trying to please everyone, because you can't. 

The problems we face today are that since Usenet is contracting, many
of the rules and regulations we put in place /may/ no longer be as
relevant.  However, with new group proposals being almost as rare as
hen's teeth there seems little point in changing the rules.

I was saddened to see Graham's list of dead or nearly dead groups in
uk.*  It's very tempting to think what the heck, let's just forget
everything that went before and make any RFD a free for all, just to
get some action.  But that would be negligent IMO and if I were to do
that I may as well resign.

The time wasted on arguing the urcm proposal and these committee
elections would have been better spent trying to work out some way we
can keep Usenet as a viable entity.  There is nothing like it on the
Internet.  
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:47:18 +0000, Owen Dunn
 wrote:

>Geoff Berrow  writes:
>
>> The time wasted on arguing the urcm proposal and these committee
>> elections would have been better spent trying to work out some way
>> we can keep Usenet as a viable entity.  There is nothing like it on
>> the Internet.
>
>I think that's exactly what people _are_ doing by arguing through
>things in this group: more groups, fewer groups, moderation,
>community, the role of the committee, the scope of uk.* vs Big8, etc.
>This isn't wasting time.

That won't do it.  The problem is deeper than that.

IMV, without the involvement of a major player, Usenet will shrink
back to its core base of technical groups.
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

In  on Mon, 2 Nov 2009
08:28:14 -0000, "kat"  wrote:

>I recall I couldn't understand why people were so unfriendly, it's possible 
>to disagree with a pleasant tone, even in writing, but it felt like we were 
>being badgered.  They didn't see themselves that way of course, merely as 
>being businesslike I suppose.  There again I didn't see being called a 
>fuckwit as businesslike.  I don't remember if it was aimed at me, or others 
>who came to support the proposal, but it was said.

That RFD was a great learning experience for many of us, I think.
I can't speak for anyone else, but my initial suspicions were
based on what appeared to be the close involvement of TLLCA. I
know that he'd behaved impeccably with your lot but in uk.* he and
his sock drawer had caused mayhem prior to that and it appeared to
me that he was hellbent on creating his own little troll
playground. I took a lot of convincing that that wasn't the case.

My other objection was totally subjective, and therefore
completely out of order as an objection, and that was that I just
loathed the term "silversurfers".

But it all ended happily and had the great benefit that you and a
few others stuck around after that and you in particular have made
an outstanding contribution.

And I learned to try harder to not to let my personal prejudices,
likes and dislikes distort my view as to what is in the best
interests of the hierarchy :)

-- 
DG

In  on Mon, 02 Nov
2009 09:49:50 +0000, Geoff Berrow  wrote:

> <snip>
>
>I was saddened to see Graham's list of dead or nearly dead groups in
>uk.*  It's very tempting to think what the heck, let's just forget
>everything that went before and make any RFD a free for all, just to
>get some action.  But that would be negligent IMO and if I were to do
>that I may as well resign.
>
>The time wasted on arguing the urcm proposal and these committee
>elections would have been better spent trying to work out some way we
>can keep Usenet as a viable entity.  There is nothing like it on the
>Internet.

I agree with all of that, and the bits I snipped. For what it's
worth, I have mixture of pessimism/optimism about the future of
Usenet.

For about a decade, it was pretty much the only game in town for
those who wanted free and open discussion. Most of the arrivals
post AOL opening its doors weren't in the slightest bit interested
in Usenet itself, it was simply somewhere to post. Those of us who
cared passionately about what it was and how it all worked had
become a very small minority by about 1997.

As web forums became viable, those who just wanted somewhere to
post began to drift off into them. (I have no axe to grind as I am
actually the Benign Dictator of one such.) And I believe that the
reason why they drifted off there actually has less to do with
trolls, child abuse and spam than it has with the fact that to the
clueless multitudes, a web forum is much easier to use. They can
use their browsers, the forums look like the web pages they are
familiar with, and they couldn't give a monkeys about the
difference between nntp and http and they can't be arsed setting
up dedicated newsreaders; the forums integrate seamlessly with
their other web use. In other words, the path of least resistance
won out, as it usually does.

So, while I disagree with their analysis of why it happened, and I
especially disagree with their views of what to do about it, I
have sympathy with the concerns of the Jacksons and Brookes et al
about the mass exodus from Usenet to the www. But I think that
exodus is irreversible and trying to reverse it with greater
controls is as futile as Canute. The brief golden age of the high
volume Usenet which I loved is over and gone forever.

So, to me, the future of Usenet lies with those who actually care
about Usenet itself. I can see it increasingly becoming a small
enclave for those who enjoy it for what it is, warts and all. That
may end up with a return to the days of Fido and Cix etc, albeit
in some updated form, or it may be that we can live with the
contraction and retain a couple of dozen healthy groups. 

Whichever it is, I intend to remain a part of it. If the ship does
finally sink, I want to be on deck waving as it does :)

-- 
DG

On 2009-11-02, Dick Gaughan  wrote:

> I agree with all of that, and the bits I snipped. For what it's
> worth, I have mixture of pessimism/optimism about the future of
> Usenet.
>
> For about a decade, it was pretty much the only game in town for
> those who wanted free and open discussion. Most of the arrivals
> post AOL opening its doors weren't in the slightest bit interested
> in Usenet itself, it was simply somewhere to post. Those of us who
> cared passionately about what it was and how it all worked had
> become a very small minority by about 1997.
>
> As web forums became viable, those who just wanted somewhere to
> post began to drift off into them. (I have no axe to grind as I am
> actually the Benign Dictator of one such.) And I believe that the
> reason why they drifted off there actually has less to do with
> trolls, child abuse and spam than it has with the fact that to the
> clueless multitudes, a web forum is much easier to use. They can
> use their browsers, the forums look like the web pages they are
> familiar with, and they couldn't give a monkeys about the
> difference between nntp and http and they can't be arsed setting
> up dedicated newsreaders; the forums integrate seamlessly with
> their other web use. In other words, the path of least resistance
> won out, as it usually does.
>
> So, while I disagree with their analysis of why it happened, and I
> especially disagree with their views of what to do about it, I
> have sympathy with the concerns of the Jacksons and Brookes et al
> about the mass exodus from Usenet to the www. But I think that
> exodus is irreversible and trying to reverse it with greater
> controls is as futile as Canute. The brief golden age of the high
> volume Usenet which I loved is over and gone forever.
>
> So, to me, the future of Usenet lies with those who actually care
> about Usenet itself. I can see it increasingly becoming a small
> enclave for those who enjoy it for what it is, warts and all. That
> may end up with a return to the days of Fido and Cix etc, albeit
> in some updated form, or it may be that we can live with the
> contraction and retain a couple of dozen healthy groups. 
>
> Whichever it is, I intend to remain a part of it. If the ship does
> finally sink, I want to be on deck waving as it does :)

This summarises my opinion so well that I've left the entire thing
in.  I can't agree strongly enough with both your opinion on why
people left and why the view of Ian and Simon and the others about
how to stem the tide is exactly the wrong choice.

For a long time I was dormant on Usenet, and oddly, it took the
closure of Gradwell's news service to get me interested again.

When the new Gradwell group was created in the uk.* hierarchy I
started reading unn* again, and from there, various other groups.

Coincidentally, a new book in the Wheel of Time series was due for
release (not by Robert Jordan, may he rest in peace, but by Brandon
Sanderson), and that meant I had something to read in the RJ based
newsgroups.

If you compress people into a smaller space, and allow them to
talk they'll find a shared identity. There is absolutely a role
in the uk.* hierarchy for good management and that's to oversee
the responsible reduction of the namespace to bring together the
spread out readers that are waiting to be inspired to post.

And my last comment, if the hackers who read this group wanted
to, they could develop a good, working java based newsreader that
could be driven via a web interface.  If you can do it through
IE / FF / Opera / Chrome and don't need to know that underneath
you're nntp, then I think there's a chance of increasing the
readership of some groups.

I'm not talking about web gateways, I'm talking about a web browser
driven nntp client (links welcome if one exists).

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in 
news:slrnhetj8s.5qa.tony@snaga.darkstorm.co.uk:



> I'm not talking about web gateways, I'm talking about a web browser
> driven nntp client (links welcome if one exists).
> 
And, if so, does anyone know of one for the Symbian 3 OS/browser?  
Googling honestly has not helped, partly because news=rss in this 
context.


-- 
Percy Picacity

On 2009-11-02, Percy Picacity <key@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in 
> news:slrnhetj8s.5qa.tony@snaga.darkstorm.co.uk:
>
>
>
>> I'm not talking about web gateways, I'm talking about a web browser
>> driven nntp client (links welcome if one exists).

> And, if so, does anyone know of one for the Symbian 3 OS/browser?  
> Googling honestly has not helped, partly because news=rss in this 
> context.

This won't help at all, but NewsTap in the iPhone is a good-enough
nntp app, doesn't use the browser and it's iPhone only.  See, told
you it wouldn't help :)

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:25:49 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I'm not talking about web gateways, I'm talking about a web browser
>> driven nntp client (links welcome if one exists).
>
><shudder>

Granted there is the possibility of another endless September or WebTV
insurgence but if greater involvement is the answer, what is the
alternative?
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

On 2009-11-02, Geoff Berrow  wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:25:49 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
>>Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not talking about web gateways, I'm talking about a web browser
>>> driven nntp client (links welcome if one exists).
>>
>><shudder>
>
> Granted there is the possibility of another endless September or WebTV
> insurgence but if greater involvement is the answer, what is the
> alternative?

Exactly, and one of the complaints Usenet readers make about web
forums is the lack of true threading.  But if folk never get to see
Usenet and enjoy the true threading, and the other features of readers
then they're never going to realise it is technically a better option
for text-based discussion.

If we give them a client that fits into the product they use for 99%
of their web activity, then you'll stand a better chance of keeping
them and letting them discover the options.

I find that some of the people who claim the death of Usenet also
don't want the unwashed masses really getting involved. I didn't get
to Usenet because of academia or technical industry.  I got here
because when I joined Demon it was advertised as something they
offered.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:14:20 +0000 (UTC), Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

>And my last comment, if the hackers who read this group wanted
>to, they could develop a good, working java based newsreader that
>could be driven via a web interface.  If you can do it through
>IE / FF / Opera / Chrome and don't need to know that underneath
>you're nntp, then I think there's a chance of increasing the
>readership of some groups.
>
>I'm not talking about web gateways, I'm talking about a web browser
>driven nntp client (links welcome if one exists).

Like I said, it needs a major player.

Might be a good opportunity for MS to employ some of their legendary
EEE philosophy and get one over on Google, who seem to have claimed
Usenet for their own. 
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

Geoff Berrow  wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:25:49 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
> 
> >Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not talking about web gateways, I'm talking about a web browser
> >> driven nntp client (links welcome if one exists).
> >
> ><shudder>
> 
> Granted there is the possibility of another endless September or WebTV
> insurgence but if greater involvement is the answer, what is the
> alternative?

Sorry that wasn't the reason for my <shudder> it was the prospect of
implementing a newsreader in Java that runs inside a browser. That opens
up multiples cans of worms in various stages of decompostion.

However, thinking about it as little as possible because I do have
something else to do ATM, it doesn't seem to address the problem to me.

I suspect most divots who prefer web to news do so for a various reasons
as already discussed, but ease of configuration is a major one. With web
one simply uses a URL then bookmarks the location. For news one would
have to navigate to a news server using a different means of locating
the server. Then one has to pay for access (even if the payment is
tiny). ISPs are rapidly backing away from providing news access,
presumably scared of he libel implications so paying for access to a
third party server looks like the only way.

I suppose eternal-september might be interested in bundling accounts
with a distribution of a cross-platform client. Possibly. However if
they were interested it might be in their interests to provide news
access via  ColdFusion LWAs. That could give a better interface than a
web interface and integrate account provision and (possibly) payments in
one "application".

The big headache with webstuff for me is the proliferation of badly
designed interfaces. I can see a java browser simplyfying that, but not
addressing the "what do I point this browser at and how do I get an
account?"

On 2009-11-02, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> I suspect most divots who prefer web to news do so for a various reasons
> as already discussed, but ease of configuration is a major one. With web
> one simply uses a URL then bookmarks the location. For news one would

While this is true for people who read forums, those who contribute do
usually have to go through some hoops to create an account and often they
then fill in various profile fields in a profile.  So I don't think
some config is beyond people who do want to contribute, but you do
raise a useful issue.

> have to navigate to a news server using a different means of locating
> the server. Then one has to pay for access (even if the payment is
> tiny). ISPs are rapidly backing away from providing news access,
> presumably scared of he libel implications so paying for access to a
> third party server looks like the only way.

Yes, this is a definite issue.  The first possible solution there then
is to provide an actual web interface to a local nntp server, and you
could get away with writing the interface in javascript.  Basically,
get the google groups solution right.  In fact, we might consider
google groups being one of the big reasons for usenet not making it
in this day and age, because who wants to 'compete' with google to
provide a usenet interface when they already do so, even if their
interface hides the reality and functionality that should be there.

> I suppose eternal-september might be interested in bundling accounts
> with a distribution of a cross-platform client. Possibly. However if
> they were interested it might be in their interests to provide news
> access via  ColdFusion LWAs. That could give a better interface than a
> web interface and integrate account provision and (possibly) payments in
> one "application".
>
> The big headache with webstuff for me is the proliferation of badly
> designed interfaces. I can see a java browser simplyfying that, but not
> addressing the "what do I point this browser at and how do I get an
> account?"

Yes, it's a valid point.

I guess the obvious answer, is a Usenet to Twitter gateway ... ;)

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On 2009-11-02, Geoff Berrow  wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:14:20 +0000 (UTC), Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>And my last comment, if the hackers who read this group wanted
>>to, they could develop a good, working java based newsreader that
>>could be driven via a web interface.  If you can do it through
>>IE / FF / Opera / Chrome and don't need to know that underneath
>>you're nntp, then I think there's a chance of increasing the
>>readership of some groups.
>>
>>I'm not talking about web gateways, I'm talking about a web browser
>>driven nntp client (links welcome if one exists).
>
> Like I said, it needs a major player.

Not sure it does - it might just need a bunch of open source hackers
to decide Usenet is worth bringing to a wider audience.

But I'm sure a major player would help.  Even Mozilla seem to have
given up on nntp, with Thunderbird being terrible at it and no
mention of it being developed further.


-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
> Maybe you're being a little uptight.  Maybe you should try and understand
> the culture.  Maybe people here are giving you a harder time than you're
> used to (I doubt this), and maybe people here are giving you a harder time
> than you deserve because of the ongoing events.

This is true... but the trouble is that, due to the first urcm flamewar and
then the current one, it's rather hard to measure the culture of the group. 
And Google Groups is a very poor interface for going back and reading
hundreds of posts to get a feel for it.

Having been reading since late on in the urcm discussion, my assessment of
the group was that it contained flames between the 'regulars' and the
'newcomers', with the occasional tangent.  No doubt it has more of a sense
of humour and more tangents when in quiescent mode, but for the moment the
flames seem to be winning :(

The Other Place (news.groups) is full of abuse and with little relevant
discussion, so I suppose that coloured my expectations too.

Theo

Geoff Berrow  said:

> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:28:14 -0000, "kat" 
> wrote:
>
>> So, here I am in a weird position.  I am on the committee, and
>> supposed to be businesslike, and according to some, have no opinions
>> I should state in public, without a lot of care because my words
>> will weigh more heavily, and according to others disagree loudly (
>> if I do disagree) with committee decisions.    If I lighten up it's
>> an in joke.  If I don't no doubt I am giving others a hard time.:-)
>> I have even been accused to being too reasonable or words to that
>> effect.  So you know - you can't win really.
>
> Interesting to hear your thoughts on the silversurfers thing.  Yes,
> I've long thought that we are in a 'you can't win' situation.  After a
> while you stop trying to please everyone, because you can't.

I don't think I ever did try.  I just came to help a proponent and stayed. 
I hope I am normally polite and I try to be helpful, within my limited 
abilities.  Some people don't want to be helped.  It is always so.




>
> The problems we face today are that since Usenet is contracting, many
> of the rules and regulations we put in place /may/ no longer be as
> relevant.  However, with new group proposals being almost as rare as
> hen's teeth there seems little point in changing the rules.
>
> I was saddened to see Graham's list of dead or nearly dead groups in
> uk.*  It's very tempting to think what the heck, let's just forget
> everything that went before and make any RFD a free for all, just to
> get some action.  But that would be negligent IMO and if I were to do
> that I may as well resign.
>
> The time wasted on arguing the urcm proposal and these committee
> elections would have been better spent trying to work out some way we
> can keep Usenet as a viable entity.  There is nothing like it on the
> Internet.

Maybe once the elections are over we can have that discussion.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

Dick Gaughan  said:

> In  on Mon, 2 Nov 2009
> 08:28:14 -0000, "kat"  wrote:
>
>> I recall I couldn't understand why people were so unfriendly, it's
>> possible to disagree with a pleasant tone, even in writing, but it
>> felt like we were being badgered.  They didn't see themselves that
>> way of course, merely as being businesslike I suppose.  There again
>> I didn't see being called a fuckwit as businesslike.  I don't
>> remember if it was aimed at me, or others who came to support the
>> proposal, but it was said.
>
> That RFD was a great learning experience for many of us, I think.
> I can't speak for anyone else, but my initial suspicions were
> based on what appeared to be the close involvement of TLLCA. I
> know that he'd behaved impeccably with your lot but in uk.* he and
> his sock drawer had caused mayhem prior to that and it appeared to
> me that he was hellbent on creating his own little troll
> playground. I took a lot of convincing that that wasn't the case.


Allen was against us trying for a uk* group because, obviously, he knew that 
would be the reaction  Of course he couldn't exactly tell us that, he just 
came up with an alternative of him hosting our own group, or something, and 
when initially he stayed away from the proposal we wondered if it was sour 
grapes.    Which is probably why he felt he had to join in and not look 
sour!


>
> My other objection was totally subjective, and therefore
> completely out of order as an objection, and that was that I just
> loathed the term "silversurfers".

That was a difficult one.  It was what we had been called since L1 set it 
up, so we saw nothing wrong with it.  It was also a word in increasingly 
common usage so the search term does work. ;-)

>
> But it all ended happily and had the great benefit that you and a
> few others stuck around after that and you in particular have made
> an outstanding contribution.
>
> And I learned to try harder to not to let my personal prejudices,
> likes and dislikes distort my view as to what is in the best
> interests of the hierarchy :)

I enjoyed sticking around.  Once we got the group and I could relax, I 
wanted to see what happened next.  That was a group for ordinary people with 
varied levels of expertise, and if usenet is to survive, they are the ones 
that need to be drawn in.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

In uk.net.news.management, Theo Markettos
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>> Maybe you're being a little uptight.  Maybe you should try and understand
>> the culture.  Maybe people here are giving you a harder time than you're
>> used to (I doubt this), and maybe people here are giving you a harder time
>> than you deserve because of the ongoing events.

>Having been reading since late on in the urcm discussion, my assessment of
>the group was that it contained flames between the 'regulars' and the
>'newcomers', with the occasional tangent.  No doubt it has more of a sense
>of humour and more tangents when in quiescent mode, but for the moment the
>flames seem to be winning :(

And yet I see no flames.  Nothing on the scale of some of the heat that
this group has seen in the past.  There has been some robust discussion,
and some angry posts from various people, but a few angry posts doesn't a
flamewar make.

The thing for many of us (who you may describe as the regulars) is that
we're here in this group, all the time, because we value the management of
the hierarchy.

Whenever a new 'collection' of people arrive it's because the value the
creation of a single newsgroup, most often.  As a result, we tend to view
their perceptions as narrow.  This may or may not be true, but the debate
currently going on here is essentially "our group took ages, things must
change" vs. "we're here to take into account the wider issue, things are
fine".

Neither is 100% valid, but people *new* to this group didn't seem
interested in the hierarchy management, and now they are, but maybe they
don't have the history to understand how we got to where we are.

And they may think that lack of history (baggage) provides a fresh look -
but it also misses out a lot of why the rules are as they are, and we don't
want to have to live through *those* flamewars a second time.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:49:50 +0000, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>The time wasted on arguing the urcm proposal and these committee
>elections would have been better spent trying to work out some way we
>can keep Usenet as a viable entity.  There is nothing like it on the
>Internet.

A bastion of sense.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:14:20 +0000 (UTC), Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

>And my last comment, if the hackers who read this group wanted
>to, they could develop a good, working java based newsreader that
>could be driven via a web interface

The group of hackers I was involved with in .za over ten years ago
tried something similar, but the intent was to develop a java based
newsreader that interfaced with local bulletin board newsgroups.  It
kind of sucked.  

Things have moved on and an easy to drive browser would certainly make
a difference.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:56:04 +0000, .m  wrote:

>>I've just reread back through the 500+ posts I downloaded when I came
>>over here, initially, to try and warn that the vote I made was not
>>being accepted from the first email account I tried it from.
>
>You came here to alert the committee that your vote may not have been
>successful.

Yes, that's fair.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:15:32 +0000, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:16:33 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
><azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
>
>>I now realise that you are referring to a conversation with jms
>>earlier on, and I suspect that you may suspect me of being her. 
>
>Perish the thought.  One is enough.


I like the way that there are some people who just have to respond
every time my name is mentioned.

It is of course that which keeps me going - so keep it up - well done.

fuckwit.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:53:17 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:56:04 +0000, .m  wrote:
>
>>>I've just reread back through the 500+ posts I downloaded when I came
>>>over here, initially, to try and warn that the vote I made was not
>>>being accepted from the first email account I tried it from.
>>
>>You came here to alert the committee that your vote may not have been
>>successful.
>
>Yes, that's fair.

How did you get your voting paper in the first place?  In other words,
were you pointed toward it by the CFV posted in unnc, or in unna?

Also, Do you believe it's unreasonable for Neurotypicals to assume all
posters have a sense of humour?

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:16:50 +0000, .m  wrote:

>>Yes, that's fair.
>
>How did you get your voting paper in the first place?  In other words,
>were you pointed toward it by the CFV posted in unnc, or in unna?

I was alerted tothe possibility of voting by a post in uk misc.  unnc,
as I recall, was where I obtained the address for the ballot.  I had
forgotten that any problems should be discussed in unnm, which is why
I sent several posts to unnc by mistake, before realising that I had
to come to unnm. 

I have given an excess of information here in an attempt to answer any
other questions you have lined up.

>Also, Do you believe it's unreasonable for Neurotypicals to assume all
>posters have a sense of humour?

What is a neurotypical?  Sorry, 'Neurotypical'?  Do tell.

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

> I suspect most divots who prefer web to news do so for a various reasons
> as already discussed, but ease of configuration is a major one. With web
> one simply uses a URL then bookmarks the location. For news one would
> have to navigate to a news server using a different means of locating
> the server. Then one has to pay for access (even if the payment is
> tiny). ISPs are rapidly backing away from providing news access,
> presumably scared of he libel implications so paying for access to a
> third party server looks like the only way.

[...]

I have a stable of eleven good, free, text newsservers, collected over
the years. Of those at least half offer a perceived service every bit as
good as e.g. NIN; several run Cleanfeed. Nobody need pay for text Usenet
service these days.

-- 
^Ï^.        Sn!pe        My pet rock Gordon just is.

Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

> Usenet - the ham radio of the Internet.

g8dgc (long since lapsed)

-- 
^Ï^.        Sn!pe        My pet rock Gordon just is.

John Hall  wrote:

> In article <1j8lndj.60r5bli09g1bN%snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>,
>  Sn!pe  writes:

> >I have a stable of eleven good, free, text newsservers, collected over
> >the years. Of those at least half offer a perceived service every bit as
> >good as e.g. NIN; several run Cleanfeed. Nobody need pay for text Usenet
> >service these days.
> 
> Eleven! That seems somewhat excessive. If they are so good, then why do
> you need so many?

Oh, it's a bit of a hobby ever since freeserve dropped Usenet service. 
I went looking in alt.free.newsservers, became fascinated and stayed. 
This was in the days before afn got trashed of course, although even
today there is still a hard core of worthwhile posters there.
 
> (Hi, BTW. Was it on alue that we "met" previously?)

Indeed, hi back! It could have been, John; I did post in alue briefly
some years ago. ISTR I was mainly in alt.2eggs.etc in those days.

-- 
^Ï^.        Sn!pe        My pet rock Gordon just is.

Cris Galletly  wrote:

> neurotypical 

Error +++ Error +++ Error

Problem: Overuse of "neurotypical"
Description:  Limit exceeded.

Error +++ Error +++ Error

REDO FROM START

In  on Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:26:25
+0000, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:

>Are uk.* rmgroups widely acted upon? If so, it might be a good idea to
>do a bit of dead-heading. (or it might not be a good idea. Personally,
>I worry about errors if groups are rmgrouped en bloc.)

I'm not sure that there's a legitimate way for culling en bloc and
I'd argue against, and definitely vote against, any attempt to do
so.

I think - and as Graham is the one who's doing the work on this so
far he might want to clarify his intent - that the only
non-controversial way to do it would be by a seperate RFD for each
group. As most, if not all, of the rmgroups will be uncontentious,
it should be fairly straightforward, if a bit of extra work for
proponent and Control. Using a template RFD would minimise the
work involved, though, and it seems to me unlikely that any would
require a vote.

But if an RFD was put for, say, 10 groups, 9 of which were
uncontested but 1 of which met resistance, the other 9 couldn't go
ahead until the arguments about the 1 were resolved. Could all get
messy. (I typed that as "nessy" and I'm glad I spotted it in time)

Be useful to hear others' views on this.

-- 
DG

Dick Gaughan  wrote:
> In  on Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:26:25
> +0000, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>Are uk.* rmgroups widely acted upon? If so, it might be a good idea to
>>do a bit of dead-heading. (or it might not be a good idea. Personally,
>>I worry about errors if groups are rmgrouped en bloc.)
> 
> I'm not sure that there's a legitimate way for culling en bloc and
> I'd argue against, and definitely vote against, any attempt to do
> so.
> 
> I think - and as Graham is the one who's doing the work on this so
> far he might want to clarify his intent - that the only
> non-controversial way to do it would be by a seperate RFD for each
> group. As most, if not all, of the rmgroups will be uncontentious,
> it should be fairly straightforward, if a bit of extra work for
> proponent and Control. Using a template RFD would minimise the
> work involved, though, and it seems to me unlikely that any would
> require a vote.
> 
> But if an RFD was put for, say, 10 groups, 9 of which were
> uncontested but 1 of which met resistance, the other 9 couldn't go
> ahead until the arguments about the 1 were resolved. Could all get
> messy. (I typed that as "nessy" and I'm glad I spotted it in time)
> 
> Be useful to hear others' views on this.

I wondered about doing it via hierarchy, for example, it might be possible
to argue that collapsing all uk.games.video.* groups down into
uk.games.video.misc had some value.  Even if some of the groups are busier
than others, it might be possible to justify condensing everything into one
misc group.  But I didn't think it was valuable enough to do it myself or
suggest it to Graham.

I guess my main concern is that we somehow end up with (as a random
example, I've not looked at the numbers) uk.games.video.nintendo and remove
the .misc group because it's unused.  Note: uk.games.video.misc is *not*
unused, it's quite busy (thanks to the efforts of a solid core of posters
working hard to keep it going), I'm just using it as an example.  We should
tidy the hierarchy up, but be careful to leave .misc groups where they are
even if they're quiet, to catch traffic that doesn't fit into busier
specific groups.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

In  on Tue, 03 Nov
2009 15:02:38 +0000, Dick Gaughan  wrote:

>>Are uk.* rmgroups widely acted upon? If so, it might be a good idea to
>>do a bit of dead-heading. (or it might not be a good idea. Personally,
>>I worry about errors if groups are rmgrouped en bloc.)

Just realised you might have been talking about errors in the
sending of the actual rmgroups rather than at the proposal stage.
If you did then my previous comments were probably a useless pile
of shite.

They might have been a useless pile of shite even if you didn't.

-- 
DG

In <hcphcc$p58$1@news.eternal-september.org> on Tue, 3 Nov 2009
15:14:20 +0000 (UTC), Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

>I guess my main concern is that we somehow end up with (as a random
>example, I've not looked at the numbers) uk.games.video.nintendo and remove
>the .misc group because it's unused.  Note: uk.games.video.misc is *not*
>unused, it's quite busy (thanks to the efforts of a solid core of posters
>working hard to keep it going), I'm just using it as an example.  We should
>tidy the hierarchy up, but be careful to leave .misc groups where they are
>even if they're quiet, to catch traffic that doesn't fit into busier
>specific groups.

My memory banks these days tend to be write-only but somewhere in
the back of my head there is a faint echo of a long discussion at
some point about the undesirability of .misc groups, but the
details are gone and I can't recall whether (if it ever took place
at all) it was about the creation of new .misc groups. 

But I agree with you about the need for some consolidation and it
would be well worth further discussion, maybe after the proposed
cull of redundant groups has gone ahead.

-- 
DG

Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> said:

> In uk.net.news.management on Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:58:05 +0000, Geoff
> Berrow  wrote:
>
>>

>>
>> IMV, without the involvement of a major player, Usenet will shrink
>> back to its core base of technical groups.
>
> Would that be such a very bad thing?

As a non-techy person who likes using usenet - I think it would be a very 
bad thing.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:26:25 +0000, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>Usenet is certainly contracting - at least, text-only Usenet is.
>
>But smaller != worse. Slimming != dying.>

Accepted.  

>> I was saddened to see Graham's list of dead or nearly dead groups in
>> uk.*  It's very tempting to think what the heck, let's just forget
>> everything that went before and make any RFD a free for all, just to
>> get some action.  But that would be negligent IMO and if I were to do
>> that I may as well resign.
>
>Are uk.* rmgroups widely acted upon? If so, it might be a good idea to
>do a bit of dead-heading. (or it might not be a good idea. Personally,
>I worry about errors if groups are rmgrouped en bloc.)

Some dead heading will take place RSN.

>
>> The time wasted on arguing the urcm proposal and these committee
>> elections would have been better spent trying to work out some way we
>> can keep Usenet as a viable entity.  There is nothing like it on the
>> Internet.  
>

>Here we are, you and I and many others, demonstrating the viability of
>Usenet by debating whether it's viable or not.

It won't be viable if the infrastructure does not exist, which is what
I'm keen to preserve.
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

On 03 Nov 2009 Dick Gaughan  wrote in
news:5ig0f5hka03gvsjh9apb4lkh5a75h2r1ah@4ax.com: 

> In  on Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:26:25
> +0000, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>Are uk.* rmgroups widely acted upon? If so, it might be a good
>>idea to do a bit of dead-heading. (or it might not be a good idea.
>>Personally, I worry about errors if groups are rmgrouped en bloc.)
> 
> I'm not sure that there's a legitimate way for culling en bloc and
> I'd argue against, and definitely vote against, any attempt to do
> so.

Potentially you could introduce an RFD to remove X and Y and Z and .. 
and then take that to a vote with a separate Yes/No vote for each 
one. Even if I was mad enough to propose it and the commtitee didn't 
find a way of stopping it I suspect UKV would kill me for suggesting 
a 60 question vote!!!

> I think - and as Graham is the one who's doing the work on this so
> far he might want to clarify his intent - that the only
> non-controversial way to do it would be by a seperate RFD for each
> group.

Pretty much. There may be the odd pair of groups (such as the 
starlink pair) where I try and propose both rmgroups in one RFD but 
in gneral it will be 1 group / RFD.

> As most, if not all, of the rmgroups will be uncontentious,
> it should be fairly straightforward, if a bit of extra work for
> proponent and Control. Using a template RFD would minimise the
> work involved, though, and it seems to me unlikely that any would
> require a vote.

Control and I are working on ways of reducing the work at least for 
the initial RFD stage, trying to be able to send RFDs to control in a 
way he can parse with little manual effort. Fast-track requests will 
have to be done manually since the committee have to say yes to them.

-- 
Graham Drabble
"Usenet is mostly just a geek entertainment system that far too many 
people try to pretend as some type of "real" value to society."
   Curt Welch - news.software.nntp

Mark Goodge  wrote:

[...]

> Now, unless you're going to accuse me of fabricating that second
> paragraph, above (and, if you do, there are plenty of other people
> who've seen it as well), you cannot persist in this charade of
> claiming that my comments were in any way an attempt to block your RFD
> because it didn't have a list of moderators. I would, therefore,
> appreciate it if you could at least manage to retract that accusation
> and apologise to me and the the electorate for misrepresenting me in
> that way.

[...]

This seems to me to be eminently reasonable; I dare say that IJ's
response may give a clue as to his suitability for committee work. 

-- 
^Ï^.        Sn!pe        My pet rock Gordon just is.

Dick Gaughan  wrote:

> Anyone tempted to continue to try to further apply reason to
> debate with the Jackboot is advised to consult those pages to
> refresh their memories as to what we are actually dealing with
> here.

No need. I'm currently vilified by the cyclists for daring to point out
that Jackson is a fuckwit. In fact Chapman is also a fuckwit and
Damnemall passed that threshold some time ago.

I get railed at for having a short fuse over these matters. In fact I
tolerated them and their stupidity for what seemed like an incredibly
long time before sanity asserted itself and, as you have, I pointed out
their status as fuckwits. The poor little dears then started to bleat
and piss and moan about how "rude" I am.

Oddly enough, the ones calling committee members liars, having Violet
Elisabeth Bott tantrums and generally acting like a bunch of arses never
see their behaviour as "rude".

In article <nMHlIf9yDj7KFweK@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
 writes:

> At 23:58:26 on Sun, 1 Nov 2009, kat  wrote in 
> :
> 
> >When I first came here I felt the regulars - some of the regulars - 
> >gave me a hard time.
> 
> We did.  Not you personally, of course - but the Silversurfers in 
> general, because they needed to make a case for their group, and 
> initially that case appeared to be no more than "there's three thousand 
> of us, and we're terminally cuddly" ;-)

Combined with a certain amount of "I'll thcweam and thcweam until I'm
thick" IIRC.

-- 
Mike Fleming

Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> said:

> In article <nMHlIf9yDj7KFweK@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford
>  writes:
>
>> At 23:58:26 on Sun, 1 Nov 2009, kat  wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> When I first came here I felt the regulars - some of the regulars -
>>> gave me a hard time.
>>
>> We did.  Not you personally, of course - but the Silversurfers in
>> general, because they needed to make a case for their group, and
>> initially that case appeared to be no more than "there's three
>> thousand of us, and we're terminally cuddly" ;-)
>
> Combined with a certain amount of "I'll thcweam and thcweam until I'm
> thick" IIRC.

A natural reaction at being screamed at, really.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<