What changes to the guidelines for group removal and creation, voting
and the commitee  would you be in favour of implementing?  And why? 

http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html#guidelines

In message , Cherry 
Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
>What changes to the guidelines for group removal and creation, voting
>and the commitee  would you be in favour of implementing?

The ones I have already proposed.

>And why?

For the reasons given in the RFDs and CFVs.

[This is not a snide answer: whenever I think a change is a good idea, I 
propose it. Since I don't have an active RFD, you can see that I don't 
think any changes are needed at present.]

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                  | Home: 
Mobile: +44 7973 377646             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On 01 Nov 2009 Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote in 
news:aqdre55g7j1cu29k7ov01ugora3h29i6ub@4ax.com:

> What changes to the guidelines for group removal and creation, voting
> and the commitee  would you be in favour of implementing?  And why? 
> 
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html#guidelines
> 

None at the moment.

If i wanted things changed I would RFD for them, being on the committee 
doesn't get things changed.

-- 
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

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

> What changes to the guidelines for group removal and creation, voting
> and the commitee  would you be in favour of implementing?  And why?
>
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html#guidelines

I was about to say, none.  But that is not quite right.  I mean I can think 
of none myself, but I might be in favour if someone RFD'd something sensible 
that I haven't thought of.  Until they do I can't say why.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

In article ,
Cherry Chapstick  <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
>What changes to the guidelines for group removal and creation, voting
>and the commitee  would you be in favour of implementing?  And why? 
>
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html#guidelines

I think there is little that needs to be changed.

I've already suggested something in my article about moderated groups,
although I think it's clear that that proposal needs a lot more work
if anything is to come of it.

I'm tempted to suggest that the Fast Track objections count limit
should be removed.  But I don't think the Committee hustings flamewar
makes a good venue for that conversation.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

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

> What changes to the guidelines for group removal and creation, voting
> and the commitee  would you be in favour of implementing?  And why? 
> 
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html#guidelines
> 

Not a great deal, I don't think, modulo my previous comments about
whether more of the accumulated wisdom on what should go in an RFD
(e.g. the no binaries clause) should be written down, possibly by
change to the guidelines, possibly not.

Matthew

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

In article ,
Matthew Vernon   wrote:
>Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> writes:
>
>> What changes to the guidelines for group removal and creation, voting
>> and the commitee  would you be in favour of implementing?  And why? 
>> 
>> http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html#guidelines

 As I said, i think the guidelines are quite simple and sensible at
the moment.  Not to say that I might not support change, but I don't
see anything in immediate need of it.

>Not a great deal, I don't think, modulo my previous comments about
>whether more of the accumulated wisdom on what should go in an RFD
>(e.g. the no binaries clause) should be written down, possibly by
>change to the guidelines, possibly not.
>
 I think a FAQ or similar document may be a better approach to that
question.

-- 
Jonathan Amery.      Even in the darkness
   #####                There's a light to light your way
  #######__o         Though the world you knew is gone
  #######'/             A world you thought would always stay - Mark Dennis

In article <12B*oB7Us@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Jonathan Amery   wrote:
>In article ,
>Matthew Vernon   wrote:
>>Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> writes:
>>
>>> What changes to the guidelines for group removal and creation, voting
>>> and the commitee  would you be in favour of implementing?  And why? 
>>> 
>>> http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html#guidelines
>
> As I said, i think the guidelines are quite simple and sensible at
>the moment.  Not to say that I might not support change, but I don't
>see anything in immediate need of it.
>
 Terribly bad form to follow-up to my own post, but...

 Whilst I still agree with the paragraph above I have on further
consideration (and noting certain comments elsewhere in this
discussion) identified a modification to the "THE UK USENET COMMITTEE"
document which I propose to RFD a change for after the election has
completed (I feel it may be comfusing to attempt to do so during the
election). 

 Namely that the voting system should preferably be STV with a RON (or
rather "And No Other Candidates") option (after which the committee
would be free to coopt as if insufficent suitable candidates had been
correctly nominated).   As a modification to the ERS's instructions
this works by treating ANOC as a candidate and if at any point it is
deemed elected the vote counting is terminated at that point and all
candidates previously deemed elected are elected.

 Naturally, however, I do not have to be a member of the committee to
propose this RFD so I shall do so regardless of the result of the
election.

-- 
Jonathan Amery.   But I tell you, a host needs a name that's particular,
   #####              A name that's peculiar, and more dignified,
  #######__o      Else how can it keep its home page perpendicular,- rfc2100
  #######'/           And spread out its data, send pages world wide?

In message <o1E*xv+Us@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 02:28:46 on Tue, 
3 Nov 2009, Jonathan Amery  wibbled

> Namely that the voting system should preferably be STV with a RON (or
>rather "And No Other Candidates") option (after which the committee
>would be free to coopt as if insufficent suitable candidates had been
>correctly nominated).   As a modification to the ERS's instructions
>this works by treating ANOC as a candidate and if at any point it is
>deemed elected the vote counting is terminated at that point and all
>candidates previously deemed elected are elected.

*shudder*

In MID  Barry put it rather better.
>
> Naturally, however, I do not have to be a member of the committee to
>propose this RFD so I shall do so regardless of the result of the
>election.
>
Please do make the change RFD that we don't re-open nominations if all 
positions are not filled and the Committee co-opts or we could have a 
merry-go-round until the next Committee vote is due.

If it passes we'd do it obviously. Don't count on my vote in favour 
though even if you accept the plea ;-)

-- 
Pedt

In article ,
Pedt   wrote:
>In MID  Barry put it rather better.
>>
>> Naturally, however, I do not have to be a member of the committee to
>>propose this RFD so I shall do so regardless of the result of the
>>election.
>>
>Please do make the change RFD that we don't re-open nominations if all 
>positions are not filled and the Committee co-opts or we could have a 
>merry-go-round until the next Committee vote is due.

 I have obviously failed to make my proposal clear, since you've cited
Barry's post (which had me confused anyway, because that's not how you
do RON in STV).  If, as Barry puts it, RON is elected in third place
then you stop the election right then and there with two succesfully
elected candidates and carry on to the existing fallback procedure
that you would have used anyway if there'd only been two nominations.

 In this case the procedure at this point is that the committee is
allowed to coopt to fill the empty positions.

 J.

-- 
Jonathan Amery.    Let us try what Love will do; for if men did once see
   #####           we love them, we should soon find they would not harm
  #######__o       us.  Force may subdue, but Love gains: and he that
  #######'/        forgives first, wins the laurel. - William Penn, 1693

In message <8C*5ObVs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 17:31:16 on Tue, 3 
Nov 2009, Jonathan Amery  wibbled
>In article ,
>Pedt   wrote:
>>In MID  Barry put it rather better.
>>>
>>> Naturally, however, I do not have to be a member of the committee to
>>>propose this RFD so I shall do so regardless of the result of the
>>>election.
>>>
>>Please do make the change RFD that we don't re-open nominations if all
>>positions are not filled and the Committee co-opts or we could have a
>>merry-go-round until the next Committee vote is due.
>
> I have obviously failed to make my proposal clear,

Could well be my fault as I've also experience of uk.glb votes, though 
without RON coming other than last.

>If, as Barry puts it, RON is elected in third place
>then you stop the election right then and there with two succesfully
>elected candidates and carry on to the existing fallback procedure
>that you would have used anyway if there'd only been two nominations.
>
> In this case the procedure at this point is that the committee is
>allowed to coopt to fill the empty positions.

Sounds far better though some nitpicks will probably have come to me by 
the time the RFD appears ;-)

-- 
Pedt
Edward Bulwer-Lytton - famous for being the first to start a novel with the
corniest opening sentence.