In message , Cherry 
Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:
>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'

Correct. Fast-track is supposed to only be for uncontentious matters. If 
six people think that fast-track is wrong, it's contentious by 
definition. If one person has a valid objection, it's contentious by 
decision. The committee gets to decide if the one (or up to five) 
objections are valid or not.

Note that *all* this does is force the matter to a vote.

>'All objections and appeals will be decided by the Committee.'

Also correct.

>( 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)

True. The assumption is that the committee would be comprised of 
reasonable people (and there's a MoNC procedure for when they aren't). 
It's very hard to come up with an exhaustive list of possible objections 
in advance.

>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.

Yes.

>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,

I can see nothing in the guidelines that says that. There are some 
explicit rules about what makes an RFD valid, and if Control thinks one 
isn't he can ask the committee to rule. But if the committee blocked a 
valid RFC without *very* good reason there would be a serious chance of 
a MoNC.

>but there is
>precedence that 'the opinion of the committe' can stop RFDs proceeding
>and control issues rmgrouping under their discussions.

There is?

Certainly the committee can *not* stop a valid RFC to remove a group.

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