In uk.net.news.management on Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:02:01 +0000, Geoff
Berrow  wrote:

> 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.

I think there would have been too many objections, even if the
loonies' objections were ignored.

> As Steve points out it was the proponent, not the proposal, that
> generated the dissent.

IMO, it's the proposal that matters, not the proponent. I don't think
I'd have been the only one to want to block fast-tracking because of
fundamental problems with the proposal despite having no objection to
the proponent (or to any of the proposed moderators), and indeed
agreeing with him (and them) that URC had a problem that needed to be
solved.


-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator