In uk.net.news.management on Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:49:50 +0000, Geoff
Berrow  wrote:

> 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. 

You don't have to please *anyone*. You just have to do the job you
were elected to do. If the way you do your job doesn't please the
voters, they'll find somebody who pleases them better.

> 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.

Usenet is certainly contracting - at least, text-only Usenet is.

But smaller != worse. Slimming != dying.

> 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.)

> 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.


-- 
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