In article <hcpovp$24b$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
Tony   wrote:
>Ian Jackson  wrote:
>> An example: 
>> [ Control and Committee rejecting 1st draft of 1st RFD ]
><snip>
>
>You have said this before, over and over.  Stating it again won't change
>anyone's mind.  Either people believe you, or they don't. 

I send my first draft of the 1st RFD to Control on Wednesday the 20th
of May at 14:37.

Control didn't post it.  Instead Control wrote to me at 00:19 that night:

   Is this an actual RFD or a sort of "pre-RFD"?  [...]

   [...]   if it's an actual RFD then it needs to be a bit
   tighter and to have some other fields  [...]

I replied at 13:58 on Thursday, CC the Committee, saying it was a real
RFD and explaining that I would like it posted.  However Control had
by then left for a long weekend (saying they would be back on the
Tuesday the 26th).  So at that point I justifiably expected that my
RFD would be posted as-is on Control's return on Tuesday.

However a member of the Committee replied on Friday the 21st:

   A first RFD should be sufficiently well-formed to be able to be
   fast-tracked or voted on without further amendments if appropriate;
   a proposal that will inevitably require a further RFD because it
   doesn't contain all the necessary information is not, IMO, ready to
   be published as an RFD.

This is directly contrary to the explicit text of the Guidelines.

Based on that, I decided (just like in every other case where Control
and the Committee unjustifiably obstructed) that rather than argue, I
would do it the Committee's way.

Hence the pre-RFD on the 26th.

-- 
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

On 03 Nov 2009 18:35:44 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>However a member of the Committee replied on Friday the 21st:
>
>   A first RFD should be sufficiently well-formed to be able to be
>   fast-tracked or voted on without further amendments if appropriate;
>   a proposal that will inevitably require a further RFD because it
>   doesn't contain all the necessary information is not, IMO, ready to
>   be published as an RFD.

>This is directly contrary to the explicit text of the Guidelines.

No it isn't. The very next paragraph, (from Mark, who I hope will
forgive me quoting him) which you conveniently snipped says:

>  Having said that, I haven't seen this one, so I have no idea whether 
>  it's in an RFDable state or not yet. If the only issue is the fact that 
>  the moderators aren't yet known, that's not a problem - that's not 
>  core to the proposal itself, and can be addressed later if required.

So not only had the committee NOT seen the RFD (and hence could not
block it) but you were explicitly told by a member of the committee
that the list of moderators was NOT a problem.






-- 
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

Enough is enough :(

As you are a candidate for the committee, I have been
(uncharacteristically) giving you the benefit of the doubt in
hopes that something someone said would finally cause clue to be
absorbed. However you now display the classic symptoms of
incurability.


http://www.fuckwit.info/

http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/fwit-faq.html


Failure to recognise yourself should be interpreted as a
successful diagnosis. 

Not that I expect you to read either of those; doing so would be
incompatible with true fuckwittedness.

Anyone tempted to continue to try to further apply reason to
debate with the Jackboot is advised to consult those pages to
refresh their memories as to what we are actually dealing with
here.

-- 
DG

In  on Tue, 03 Nov
2009 19:35:01 +0000, Dick Gaughan  wrote:

>
>Enough is enough :(
>


In case of doubt, my previous post was in response to

Message-ID: <mYD*a4bVs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>

-- 
DG

On 03 Nov 2009 18:35:44 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>I send my first draft of the 1st RFD to Control on Wednesday the 20th
>of May at 14:37.
>
>Control didn't post it.  Instead Control wrote to me at 00:19 that night:
>
>   Is this an actual RFD or a sort of "pre-RFD"?  [...]
>
>   [...]   if it's an actual RFD then it needs to be a bit
>   tighter and to have some other fields  [...]
>
>I replied at 13:58 on Thursday, CC the Committee, saying it was a real
>RFD and explaining that I would like it posted.  However Control had
>by then left for a long weekend (saying they would be back on the
>Tuesday the 26th).  So at that point I justifiably expected that my
>RFD would be posted as-is on Control's return on Tuesday.
>
>However a member of the Committee replied on Friday the 21st:
>
>   A first RFD should be sufficiently well-formed to be able to be
>   fast-tracked or voted on without further amendments if appropriate;
>   a proposal that will inevitably require a further RFD because it
>   doesn't contain all the necessary information is not, IMO, ready to
>   be published as an RFD.

FFS, Ian, look up what "IMO" means. And then go back and read that
email again, because you seem to have missed the paragraph immediately
after it:

  Having said that, I haven't seen this one, so I have no idea whether
  it's in an RFDable state or not yet. If the only issue is the
  fact that the moderators aren't yet known, that's not a problem -
  that's not core to the proposal itself, and can be addressed later
  if required.

So, you can see that, far from blocking your first draft on the
grounds that it didn't contain the list of moderators, my comment
explicitly stated that this wasn't necessary.

Now, unless you're going to accuse me of fabricating that second
paragraph, above (and, if you do, there are plenty of other people
who've seen it as well), you cannot persist in this charade of
claiming that my comments were in any way an attempt to block your RFD
because it didn't have a list of moderators. I would, therefore,
appreciate it if you could at least manage to retract that accusation
and apologise to me and the the electorate for misrepresenting me in
that way.

>This is directly contrary to the explicit text of the Guidelines.
>
>Based on that, I decided (just like in every other case where Control
>and the Committee unjustifiably obstructed) that rather than argue, I
>would do it the Committee's way.

At that point, the committee hadn't even seen your first draft. *You*
made the choice to go away and come up with a better proposal. We
never even had the chance to block it.

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

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:36:39 +0000, Dick Gaughan
 wrote:

>In case of doubt

As if anyone could!

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:00:54 +0000, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>Now, unless you're going to accuse me of fabricating that second
>paragraph, above (and, if you do, there are plenty of other people
>who've seen it as well),

I already posted my copy Mark, though I wouldn't be surprised if they
didn't think it was a conspiracy

> you cannot persist in this charade of
>claiming that my comments were in any way an attempt to block your RFD
>because it didn't have a list of moderators. I would, therefore,
>appreciate it if you could at least manage to retract that accusation
>and apologise to me and the the electorate for misrepresenting me in
>that way.

He has misrepresented the entire committee and misled a whole lot of
people.

Despicable, as Judith would say.
-- 
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