In message <mYD*a4bVs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 18:35:44 on Tue, 
3 Nov 2009, Ian Jackson  wibbled
>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.

If someone sent me something that was called a "draft" then I'd assume 
it wasn't something ready to be published but a work in progress.

>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.
>
Looks to be advice that if you go ahead with it you will need another 
RFD and that Committee member was expressing their own opinion and not a 
response on behalf of the committee. I can't see anything there that 
says it has been rejected by the committee.

What else did it say as it looks incomplete to be a full comment?

>Hence the pre-RFD on the 26th.
>
Why did it take you 5 days to post it to a newsgroup when you considered 
the above a rejection?


I had no interest in cyclists or their newsgroup(s) previously. I'm very 
rapidly coming to the conclusion that I want nothing to do with them in 
future.

-- 
Pedt