On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:25:24 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
 wrote:

>>Yes, I agree with that.  So, we are agreed that there is some level of
>>control in place via the committees with the users alerting the
>>committees to the need for this group or for that group.
>
>No, the users alert the *electorate*.
>
>All the Committee does is ensure the procedures are followed and that 
>the proposal fits into the naming scheme.

Who is it who has mandated that this is all that the committee does?
Where is that rule written?

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:02:05 +0000, Cherry Chapstick put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:25:24 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
> wrote:
>
>>>Yes, I agree with that.  So, we are agreed that there is some level of
>>>control in place via the committees with the users alerting the
>>>committees to the need for this group or for that group.
>>
>>No, the users alert the *electorate*.
>>
>>All the Committee does is ensure the procedures are followed and that 
>>the proposal fits into the naming scheme.
>
>Who is it who has mandated that this is all that the committee does?

We, the electorate, have.

>Where is that rule written?

http://www.usenet.org.uk/committee.html

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

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:21:52 +0000, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>We, the electorate, have.
>
>>Where is that rule written?
>
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/committee.html

Thank you; it is much as I remember, now.

I see two things worth of note there.  Firstly there is no consensus
on how rmgroup should be issued, except to say that only control can
issue a valid rmgroup, and that control works as directed by
committee.  In the lack of any other direction, this would indicate
that the decision to rmgroup *is* the responsibility of the committee.

I'm not being argumentative - well, I am, but not trying to spoil or
attack - rather, I am trying to get to the bottom of what does appear
to be a problem.

So far as I can see, there is no inclusion of instruction anywhere;
that is, there is no guidance other than that posted above as to how
rmgroup should be initiated by the user. 

Secondly, there are several clauses that indicate that decisions are
made on the basis of committee opinion  e.g. 

'In the event of 6 or more objections, or any objection which seems to
the Committee to be well founded, the fast-track procedure shall be
halted' 

and 

'All objections and appeals will be decided by the Committee.' ( A
list of areas of objectionthat will be considered  is also given, but
not necessarily a list of criteria for judging the validity of
objections made within those areas)

It seems, on rereading the guidelines or rules, that they were created
in an era where usenet appeared to be about to expand forever.

Some of the committe members have indicated that should users of
usenet feel a need to change these rules given the current situation
re usenet, they should RFD the proposed changes. 

However, the committe *could* (please note that I say could, not
would) object to RFDs relating to guideline changes or rmgrouping
proceeding to vote on several grounds as there is very little guidance
given as to how they should behave in such a situation, but there is
precedence that 'the opinion of the committe' can stop RFDs proceeding
and control issues rmgrouping under their discussions.

There is also nothing to describe, so far as I can tell, on what
grounds the committee could ask control to issue an rmgroup.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:24:56 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>So far as I can see, there is no inclusion of instruction anywhere;
>that is, there is no guidance other than that posted above as to how
>rmgroup should be initiated by the user. 

My mistake:  That is to be found here

'The procedures described above shall be used, with appropriate
changes, for the removal, renaming, splitting or combining of groups,
for changing the charter of groups, for introducing major changes to
the hierarchy, for changing the moderation status, or for forcing a
change of moderator (under normal circumstances, it is accepted that a
retiring moderator appoints his successor).'

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

I snipped the first bit as I see you found that it is the same for removal 
as for new groups.


>
> Secondly, there are several clauses that indicate that decisions are
> made on the basis of committee opinion  e.g.
>
> 'In the event of 6 or more objections, or any objection which seems to
> the Committee to be well founded, the fast-track procedure shall be
> halted'
>
> and
>
> 'All objections and appeals will be decided by the Committee.' ( A
> list of areas of objectionthat will be considered  is also given, but
> not necessarily a list of criteria for judging the validity of
> objections made within those areas)

Objections and appeals are made by the electorate, the Committee cannot 
consider anything until those objections are made. Any member of the 
Committee can, as part of the electorate,  make a formal objection - but 
will then not take part in the discussion as to if being upheld or not.

>
> It seems, on rereading the guidelines or rules, that they were created
> in an era where usenet appeared to be about to expand forever.
>
> Some of the committe members have indicated that should users of
> usenet feel a need to change these rules given the current situation
> re usenet, they should RFD the proposed changes.
>
> However, the committe *could* (please note that I say could, not
> would) object to RFDs relating to guideline changes or rmgrouping
> proceeding to vote on several grounds as there is very little guidance
> given as to how they should behave in such a situation, but there is
> precedence that 'the opinion of the committe' can stop RFDs proceeding
> and control issues rmgrouping under their discussions.
>
> There is also nothing to describe, so far as I can tell, on what
> grounds the committee could ask control to issue an rmgroup.


 An individual presents an RFD for removal.  The Committee cannot as a body 
object to any properly formatted RFD, discussion ensues,   and the 
electorate decides.  If the electorate so decides, Control issues the 
rmgroup.


Any member of the Committee can act as the user who proposes the removal, 
but so can any non-member.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:04:51 +0000, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>At 00:07:18 on Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote 
>in <1j8j1ix.xvc9fhgewctgN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:
>
>>With regard to the stupidity that started the current attempted coup. If
>>the proponent had actually listened to what he was being told - not just
>>by the committee but by the electorate - then the creation of URCM could
>>have been fast-tracked. As it was, the attitude of "no I want to have my
>>own bat, ball, bucket and spade and you can't make me play nicely"
>>ensured that the only way forward was a vote.
>
>To be fair, I think that the noise generated by the opposition was such 
>that it would have been unlikely that the proposal could have been 
>defined as uncontentious.

I did think at one point that it had the potential to be fast tracked.
As Steve points out it was the proponent, not the proposal, that
generated the dissent.
-- 
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 08:02:01 +0000, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>I did think at one point that it had the potential to be fast tracked.
>As Steve points out it was the proponent, not the proposal, that
>generated the dissent.

Hence my comment that Jacko was equally as complicit in any delay as
any other factor.  His response of 'Bollocks' kicked off the flames
that the Chiarkians now seem so morally disinclined to want to see.