Preliminary Volunteer List: Next Step
Todd Michel McComb
As a reminder, the following people, listed in a new random order,
have agreed to volunteer their time to make decisions regarding the
Big8 group list:
James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com>
K. A. Cannon <kaca...@insurgent.orgy>
Yves Bellefeuille <y...@storm.ca>
"Tom Perrett" <to...@st.net.au>
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu>
Leo G Simonetta <lsimo...@newsguy.com>
Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com>
ru.ig...@usask.ca
Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com>
Darren Wyn Rees <dar...@cymraeg.orgNOSPAM>
Pesky Irritant <pe...@irritant.com>
"BowTie" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet>
Otaku <Ot...@troll4fun.com>
Brian Edmonds <br...@gweep.ca>
Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov>
sta...@shell.peak.org (John Stanley)
Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk>
"Vito Kuhn" <vito...@family-usenet.com>
David Matthewman <da...@matthewman.org>
tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Stephen M. Adams <ada...@no.spam>
BarB <pat...@earthlink.net>
Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net>
j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens)
Each of the people on this list should now send to me their preference
for who else is on the Board. Do this by sending an ordered list
of the names/addresses above, starting with the person you most
want to see on the Board, and ending with the person you least want
to see on the Board.
So, if the above random list were my own list, it would mean that
I most approve of having James Farrar on the Board, followed by K.
A. Cannon, all the way down to Howard S Shubs and finally Jonathan
Kamens whom I'd least want on the Board.
Do not include yourself. I will be ignoring votes for yourself
and/or pretending that you put yourself first (which will amount
to the same thing). Do not include people who are not on the list.
Only people who have volunteered, together with Russ and I, will
be voting. This allows us to both respect the people who have
volunteered, by having them participate strongly in at least one
decision, and to arrive at a Board which is reasonably compatible
with itself. Restricting it to this self-selected set of people
also makes collecting the votes manageable for me in limited time.
I will not be making the votes public, to avoid fanning the flames
of acrimony between future Board members who might not be mutual
admirers. Of course, if you want to make your own lists public,
that is your business. You might want to wait until after the
results are announced, to avoid prejudicing other voters, or you
might not. In any event, this should be seen as a one-time procedure
to construct a preliminary Board, and I would hope that future
election votes are reported in public.
Please take your lists seriously, since the ordering of people in
the middle can end up making a difference. Russ and I will discuss
the lists and decide how many people will be on the initial Board.
The number is not yet determined, so list everyone, from most to
least desirable.
This is going to be the last step before we actually name a Board
which will then be empowered to decide upon the general Big8 issues.
So we are almost there.
Thank you again for your interest and patience.
Todd McComb for NAN Team
Pesky Irritant
> The number is not yet determined,
When do you think you'll know the number? How do you plan to come by that
number? I realize you're making this up as you go along, but could you do
us all a favor and _first_ make up the rules _before_ posting them, rather
than posting bits and pieces? That is not only irritating, BUT YOU'RE
MAKING ME REDUNDANT! I'M THE IRRITANT AND YOU ARE TAKING MY JOB!
Jim Logajan
> for who else is on the Board. Do this by sending an ordered list
> of the names/addresses above, starting with the person you most
> want to see on the Board, and ending with the person you least want
> to see on the Board.
I urge everyone on that list to NOT send Todd a list. We all deserve to be
on the board. He has given no coherent reason for narrowing the board size.
Two dozen people is already too small to represent the Usenet community. If
we want to create a successor body that contains fewer members than us,
that is supposed to be our job.
> I will not be making the votes public, to avoid fanning the flames
> of acrimony between future Board members who might not be mutual
> admirers.
YOU set up ground rules that force people to choose amongst each other!
This is an artificial limit you've made that need not have been made. What
kind of person forces people to take stabs at each other? Perhaps you've
been watching too much reality TV or something.
For the record, not even I would do that - after all, I'm Pesky Irritant,
not Malevolent Intent.
(Beware the Ides of November my fellow Board volunteers! The NAN trusts us
not! This is an inauspicious beginning to our endeavors!)
Pesky Irritant
> have agreed to volunteer their time to make decisions regarding the
> Big8 group list:
> Pesky Irritant <pe...@irritant.com>
I withdraw from Board consideration.
Jim Logajan
> For the record, not even I would do that - after all, I'm Pesky
> Irritant, not Malevolent Intent.
Time to withdraw!
Good luck all.
Adam H. Kerman
>As a reminder, the following people, listed in a new random order,
>have agreed to volunteer their time to make decisions regarding the
>Big8 group list . . .
>Each of the people on this list should now send to me their preference
>for who else is on the Board. Do this by sending an ordered list
>of the names/addresses above, starting with the person you most
>want to see on the Board, and ending with the person you least want
>to see on the Board.
omigod!
WE ARE VOTING PEOPLE OFF THE ISLAND!
Peter J Ross
<mcc...@medieval.org> wrote in news.announce.newgroups:
> Only people who have volunteered, together with Russ and I, will
> be voting. This allows us to both respect the people who have
> volunteered, by having them participate strongly in at least one
> decision, and to arrive at a Board which is reasonably compatible
> with itself. Restricting it to this self-selected set of people
> also makes collecting the votes manageable for me in limited time.
How will you be counting the votes? Will a ballot that contains only a
top three list be invalid? What about a ballot that contains only a
bottom three list? Or is this just a consultation, in which you and
Russ will overrule the voters if you think they're wrong? (I rather
hope that the answer to this last question will be Yes.)
<...>
> The number is not yet determined, so list everyone, from most to
> least desirable.
How can you hold a ballot without knowing how many places are to be
filled?
PJR :-)
--
alt.usenet.kooks award-winners and FAQ:
<http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/>
Geoff Berrow
H. Kerman contained the following:
>omigod!
>
>WE ARE VOTING PEOPLE OFF THE ISLAND!
LOL! This reality stuff - it's everywhere.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the (uk.*) commitee's, mine.
Howard S Shubs
Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
> YOU set up ground rules that force people to choose amongst each other!
My problem is that I don't know more than maybe one of the people on
that list, other than myself.
> (Beware the Ides of November my fellow Board volunteers! The NAN trusts us
> not! This is an inauspicious beginning to our endeavors!)
Hopefully, you'll survive it.
--
A few minutes ago I attempted to give a flying fsck, but the best I
could do was to watch it skitter across the floor. (Anthony de Boer)
Adam H. Kerman
>Each of the people on this list should now send to me their preference
>for who else is on the Board. Do this by sending an ordered list
>of the names/addresses above, starting with the person you most
>want to see on the Board, and ending with the person you least want
>to see on the Board.
Todd, this is your responsibility. Make a decision. Put the team together.
Don't set them against each other.
Paul Carpenter
<Xns970B5971856D...@216.168.3.30>
Jam...@Lugoj.com "Jim Logajan" wrote:
>mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
>> Each of the people on this list should now send to me their preference
>> for who else is on the Board. Do this by sending an ordered list
>> of the names/addresses above, starting with the person you most
>> want to see on the Board, and ending with the person you least want
>> to see on the Board.
>
>I urge everyone on that list to NOT send Todd a list. We all deserve to be
>on the board. He has given no coherent reason for narrowing the board size.
>Two dozen people is already too small to represent the Usenet community. If
>we want to create a successor body that contains fewer members than us,
>that is supposed to be our job.
Whilst I can see his motives, the method is a bit suspect....
When the uk.* system wast started (and I remember it being started and
at one time served my three years on the committee), general discussion in
the then config group agreed that a body should be set up of a size to be
representative but not unwieldy. We ended up with a size of 13 to always
have the chance of most occassions being no deadlock.
The size has to be sufficient to be representative, and allow for short
breaks (vacation, hospital treatment and other real life problems). However
if the size gets to about 20 or more you are talking not of a dsicussion list
but a newsgroup in itself, and time delays for vote casting, ensuring at
least some form of quorum amount of comments have been raised. The larger the
list size the longer any deliberations take.
In the early years the numbers on the committee were reduced in size by
permanent member seats (ISPs/NSPs) not being fully filled or those incumbent
being mainly silent. Personally even though NSP/ISP involvement is good it
is harder and harder to get them to put up people who will still be doing
the same job or be interested 6 months down the line.
Personally you have UVV who could take a vote on the whole list to reduce it
to a number agreed here by discussion between 7 and 17 (IMHO). UVV can accept
the list as provided to vote on or run another process as UVV has members who
understand this sort of process of calling for nominations, and onwards.
To be seen to be wanting to change you also may have to have those on board
you do not agree with.
There are issues that must be resolved first by discussion to enable this
to proceed, namely:-
1/ How many people will exist on this interim body
2/ Time limit for this body to sit to create the new scheme
3/ What will happen about new scheme, will it be fiat or
"a voted for constitution".
4/ What happens if
(a) nothing is decided within the time limit
(b) any new scheme is rejected (either by vote or other
powers).
--
Paul Carpenter | pa...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 & mailing list info
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate
Brian Edmonds
> Todd, this is your responsibility. Make a decision. Put the team
> together. Don't set them against each other.
OTOH, if he's looking for a team that will work well together, doing
an internal compatibility poll of the group isn't such a bad idea.
Brian.
Russ Allbery
> Todd, this is your responsibility. Make a decision. Put the team
> together. Don't set them against each other.
No, that's not right. Part of what has to happen for an effective working
group is for that group to be able to work with each other. If there are
conflicts that prevent that from happening, we need to know about it up
front. If people don't like the way that we're going about gathering that
information, well, tough. We'll be gone before too long and then the
board can make up whatever other rules that you think work better.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Adam H. Kerman
It IS a bad idea if the only people who end up on the committee are of
like mind on issues that need thorough consideration.
Peter J Ross
wrote in news.groups:
> We'll be gone before too long and then the board can make up
> whatever other rules that you think work better.
^^^
You misspelled "they".
Please tell me that all this fuckwitted nonsense is just a troll.
Jim Logajan
> Adam H Kerman <a...@chinet.com> writes:
>
>> Todd, this is your responsibility. Make a decision. Put the team
>> together. Don't set them against each other.
>
> No, that's not right. Part of what has to happen for an effective
> working group is for that group to be able to work with each other.
Well... Is the British House of Commons too large to be effective?
How about the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives?
Was the number of members of the U.S. Constitutional convention too large
to generate a document?
Obviously history seems to suggest large numbers of people with conflicts
can be productivs (sometimes too productive! ;-))
> If there are conflicts that prevent that from happening, we need to
> know about it up front.
If that had been the case, the option "If you have no problems with anyone
else on the list, say so," would have been helpful. Then you bounce
everyone who is eager to present their list because they obviously like
holding grudges. You'd keep the people who say "shucks, they're all fine
with me," because they have the right laid-back attitudes ;-)
As has been noted by one volunteer already, there will be those who don't
know enough about other members to make any sort of decision. Under those
conditions you would be weeding out unknowns, not incompatible members.
Why not have the first order of business of the Board volunteers be that
they decide if the board should be reduced and what mechanism should be
used to do it? If things get ugly, then and only then should you invoke
your mechanism. I think this would allow Board volunteers to learn more
about their fellow members and how they'll get along.
edward ohare
wrote:
Yea, but that would be a chance event because its near impossible to
determine where a candidate stands very many issues. How is a person
to remember at this point who said what in a news.groups discussion
that may have occurred months ago?
No statement of position on issues has been requested. In fact, the
issues themselves are not identified.
So I think there is little chance of ending up with a committee of
people who happen to agree on everything, assuming enough people are
selected.
Concerning how many will be selected, it seems likely that there will
be a fairly obvious cut off point after people have voted.
edward ohare
paul$@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk (Paul Carpenter) wrote:
>When the uk.* system wast started (and I remember it being started and
>at one time served my three years on the committee), general discussion in
>the then config group agreed that a body should be set up of a size to be
>representative but not unwieldy. We ended up with a size of 13 to always
>have the chance of most occassions being no deadlock.
Yea, I previously suggested 10-15 as a max size for the reasons you
mention. I can't believe anyone thinks having 24 members is a good
idea. It needs to be cut down.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H Kerman <a...@chinet.com> writes:
>>Todd, this is your responsibility. Make a decision. Put the team
>>together. Don't set them against each other.
>No, that's not right. Part of what has to happen for an effective
>working group is for that group to be able to work with each other. If
>there are conflicts that prevent that from happening, we need to know
>about it up front. If people don't like the way that we're going about
>gathering that information, well, tough. We'll be gone before too long
>and then the board can make up whatever other rules that you think work
>better.
That I think will work better?
Russ Allbery
> I don't think there should be a limit. There's a finite number now.
> All should be included.
You can't get anything done unless you limit the number of people involved
to something reasonable. Look at news.groups right now, for example; we
could keep talking about all this here forever without arriving at any
workable conclusion or actually implementing things (and in fact have been
for the past decade). People who are good at this sort of thing can make
large boards work by forming subcommittees aggressively, but it's easier
to start with a workable number of people in the first place.
Russ Allbery
> Well... Is the British House of Commons too large to be effective?
> How about the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives?
Yes. That's why they form subcommittees aggressively and do all the real
work in committee. That requires a degree of organizational acumen that I
think is too high of a bar to set for participation in this sort of group,
though. I don't want to require everyone participating in this have past
experience with non-profit boards or city councils or the like.
Russ Allbery
Yes. Perhaps you missed the word "can"? (As distinct from the word
"will.")
edward ohare
<blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.05...@sj.yntans.bet> from Adam
>H. Kerman contained the following:
>
>>omigod!
>>
>>WE ARE VOTING PEOPLE OFF THE ISLAND!
>
>LOL! This reality stuff - it's everywhere.
Heh heh.
Seriously, though, just for grins since I don't have a vote, I started
a voting list of my own. I was able to fill in the top 7 positions
and the bottom 3. There's one more I don't know whether to put at the
bottom of the top or the top of the bottom. The result is I don't
know enough about over half the candidates to have an opinion. I
assume this is going to be fairly common among the voters.
Wayne Brown
>
> I think this is a very good idea. I sent in my vote for all 24.
> Although, I'd say anyone who doesn't want it to be all 24 should
> resign now. :)
I almost wish now that I had volunteered to be on the list, just for
the opportunity to vote *against* everyone on it, including myself.
--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwb...@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"
Jim Logajan
> Yea, I previously suggested 10-15 as a max size for the reasons you
> mention. I can't believe anyone thinks having 24 members is a good
> idea. It needs to be cut down.
It's 23 members now. In another post I gave historical examples of much
larger bodies being productive and accomplishing historically important
things. Yes, things could go wrong or be so devisive that no progress
results - historical precedents exist for that kind of outcome too. But
you, Todd, and I think Russ are prematurely drawing an incorrect conclusion
based only on gut feel and not objective evidence. Keep in mind that you
presented no reasoning to support your suggestion of 10 to 15 versus any
other number (say, 5, 7, 9, etc.). If the only objective is to minimize
contention, then a Board size of 1 or 3 is probably optimum - not 10 to 15.
But I would hope that one of the main objectives is to get as
representative a sampling of Usenet community as possible, in which case a
larger body is probably better.
Since the n.a.n still holds veto power, I can't see any reason not to go
forward with all the remaining Board volunteers and seeing what happens.
Naturally the n.a.n decision to weed out volunteers may be set in stone -
if so, perhaps the Board they select can be persuaded to undue the n.a.n's
decision. ;-)
Joe Bernstein
edward ohare <edward...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Seriously, though, just for grins since I don't have a vote, I started
> a voting list of my own. I was able to fill in the top 7 positions
> and the bottom 3. There's one more I don't know whether to put at the
> bottom of the top or the top of the bottom. The result is I don't
> know enough about over half the candidates to have an opinion. I
> assume this is going to be fairly common among the voters.
It'll vary. Several of the voters have been very persistent readers
of news.groups for some time and will be familiar with most of the
names. I've been a much less persistent reader and still got twelve
from past news.* experience. Between reading the current threads
and the catch-up reading I've been doing [1], I recognised seven more.
This leaves four. Three of these are people I don't remember at all
from here (well, OK; one helped me recently in another group, but
*that* was the first time I remember seeing his name), and I'll be
Googling them. The remaining one this thread is prompting me to
think I was confused about, so, sigh... I'll probably have to
Google the rest too, except my top and bottom few.
(James Lugojan == Pesky Irritant ? Dangnab, I normally think of
James Lugojan as someone whose posts I want to read, how did I
miss this? I'm not going to comment on his withdrawal, since it
seems to be over a matter of principle, and I'm still not sure I'm
OK with this setup myself. I will note that if Gary Burnore really
sent in a vote for "all 24", he forgot to leave himself out, but
otherwise correctly followed the instructions he's criticising. ;-)
Speaking of instructions: What's the deadline? I need to decide
whether to focus on working on my proposal or on Googling people or
on deciding whether to Google people... are we talking hours, days,
or weeks?
Joe Bernstein
[1] Sigh. I *really* hope this doesn't completely scrag my
ISP's traffic limit, but ethically...
The posts I got from another are still sitting on my website.
This is news.groups as seen from Verizon from about January
30 to October 30 or so of this year; I assume most people here
still have news server access to more recent posts. The feed
seems reasonably complete except that for some reason "Woodchuck
Bill"'s posts are about 50% missing. It includes spam; it seems
that at the time, Verizon was not accepting cancels. I can't
tell whether posts are missing from troll cascades, of course.
The file is in mbox format, readable by any sensible mail program,
and is gzipped.
Anyone who wants it, e-mail me. I will send the URL to any
person voting on this list, by the currently stated rules. The
file is over 7 MB, so I will not post the URL publicly, but if
my traffic limit survives the vote, I'll send the URL to others
who ask for it. Anyway, this is one reason I'm asking about
the deadline.
I'd be happy indeed if anyone with a higher traffic limit (I
think mine is 75 MB) wanted to take the job off my hands.
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/> "She suited my mood, Sarah Mondleigh
did - it was like having a kitten in the room, like a vote for unreason."
<Glass Mountain>, Cynthia Voigt
Russ Allbery
> I almost wish now that I had volunteered to be on the list, just for the
> opportunity to vote *against* everyone on it, including myself.
We did suggest, as I recall, that people who didn't want to change should
put themselves forward for the board to there argue that nothing should
change.
Howard S Shubs
Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
> This leaves four. Three of these are people I don't remember at all
> from here (well, OK; one helped me recently in another group, but
> *that* was the first time I remember seeing his name), and I'll be
> Googling them.
You do that. If you google me, you'll find stuff going back to 1991.
I've popped into news.groups very rarely over the years.
I'd still like to know if Vuescan would work with your scanner. Y'see,
I can google *you*, too. It's not a bad idea, actually.
Howard S Shubs
Brian Edmonds <br...@gweep.ca> wrote:
> OTOH, if he's looking for a team that will work well together, doing
> an internal compatibility poll of the group isn't such a bad idea.
That assumes we know anything about each other. Myself, I'm not looking
for Power Over the USENET. That'd make herding cats look like herding
cattle.
Peter J Ross
wrote in news.groups:
> Gary L Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com> writes:
>
>> I don't think there should be a limit. There's a finite number now.
>> All should be included.
>
> You can't get anything done unless you limit the number of people involved
> to something reasonable.
Three, for instance - with vacancies filled by co-option and some of
the donkey-work delegated from time to time to carefully vetted
volunteers. But that's a little too close to the evil old system to be
acceptable in this brave new world.
> Look at news.groups right now, for example; we
> could keep talking about all this here forever
"Could"? I don't see any prospect of what you politely call
"discussion" ever dying down.
> without arriving at any
> workable conclusion or actually implementing things (and in fact have been
> for the past decade).
Of course, it's very sensible to change the "workable conclusion" from
day to day and entrust the implementation of things to people who
haven't given any idea of what they might want to implement or been
told clearly what their job is supposed to be.
> People who are good at this sort of thing can make
> large boards work by forming subcommittees aggressively, but it's easier
> to start with a workable number of people in the first place.
I'd be pleased to hear what a "workable number" is actually going to
be.
Vito Kuhn
> I urge everyone on that list to NOT send Todd a list. We all deserve to
> be on the board. He has given no coherent reason for narrowing the
> board size. Two dozen people is already too small to represent the
> Usenet community. If we want to create a successor body that contains
> fewer members than us, that is supposed to be our job.
I agree that everyone on the list should have a chance to prove
themselves before being shut out, but I STRONGLY disagree with Jim's form
of protest. For starters, it is immature. It is also ineffective. If
nobody votes except for Russ and Todd, the list will probably be picked
from THEIR votes alone.
If we absolutely MUST vote, it seems fair enough to have each candidate
post a few paragraphs about themselves and what THEY believe they can
contribute to the committee. This would help prevent people from voting
for or against each other based entirely on the person's usenet
reputation.
> > I will not be making the votes public, to avoid fanning the flames
> > of acrimony between future Board members who might not be mutual
> > admirers.
That is unfair. If votes in a CFV are made public, the same should happen
with the results of THIS kind of a vote.
> YOU set up ground rules that force people to choose amongst each other!
> This is an artificial limit you've made that need not have been made.
> What kind of person forces people to take stabs at each other? Perhaps
> you've been watching too much reality TV or something.
>
> For the record, not even I would do that - after all, I'm Pesky
> Irritant, not Malevolent Intent.
>
> (Beware the Ides of November my fellow Board volunteers! The NAN trusts
> us not! This is an inauspicious beginning to our endeavors!)
That might be true, but civil disobedience is not the answer. Make your
arguments HERE, and try to convince them to change their minds. Maybe
this can be overturned if we the volunteers ALL reach a consensus, and
individually add our names to a petition. That form of protest is more
likely to have an effect than what Jim is proposing (and I don't dislike
Jim, no matter how that just sounded).
VK
Brian Edmonds
> That assumes we know anything about each other. Myself, I'm not looking
> for Power Over the USENET. That'd make herding cats look like herding
> cattle.
For my own vote it broke down to roughly half a dozen "yes", half a
dozen "this person appears reasonable", half a dozen "I have no idea",
and half a dozen "please no". My vote had the sections in that order,
with largely no ordering within sections.
Brian.
Wayne Brown
> Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
>> I almost wish now that I had volunteered to be on the list, just for the
>> opportunity to vote *against* everyone on it, including myself.
>
> We did suggest, as I recall, that people who didn't want to change should
> put themselves forward for the board to there argue that nothing should
> change.
You're missing the point. I'm not wishing I could be on the board to
promote my viewpoint; I'm wishing I knew a way to scuttle the whole
board idea from the beginning.
Here, perhaps, is a clearer statement of my opinion on this matter:
If I could figure out a way of getting a copy of your PGP key I'd post
it publicly, and thus render the whole issue moot.
Brian Mailman
> OTOH, if he's looking for a team that will work well together, doing
> an internal compatibility poll of the group isn't such a bad idea.
When does 'internal compatibility' become group-think?
B/
Brian Mailman
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Adam H Kerman <a...@chinet.com> writes:
>>
>>> Todd, this is your responsibility. Make a decision. Put the team
>>> together. Don't set them against each other.
>>
>> No, that's not right. Part of what has to happen for an effective
>> working group is for that group to be able to work with each other.
>
> How about the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives?
Uhh... not good comparison. The Founding Fathers had a distrust of
government and understandably so and deliberately designed the US system
to make it difficult to get anything done.
B/
Russ Allbery
> You're missing the point. I'm not wishing I could be on the board to
> promote my viewpoint; I'm wishing I knew a way to scuttle the whole
> board idea from the beginning.
> Here, perhaps, is a clearer statement of my opinion on this matter: If I
> could figure out a way of getting a copy of your PGP key I'd post it
> publicly, and thus render the whole issue moot.
So, in other words, you're so convinced that you're right that you don't
want to bother with the whole convincing other people part and you would
be willing to stoop to illegal theft in order to force things to happen
the way that you want.
I'm not sure why you expect anyone else to respect that position. I'm not
particularly sure how this is different than the position of a spammer, in
fact.
Peter J Ross
wrote in news.groups:
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>
>>> I almost wish now that I had volunteered to be on the list, just for the
>>> opportunity to vote *against* everyone on it, including myself.
>>
>> We did suggest, as I recall, that people who didn't want to change should
>> put themselves forward for the board to there argue that nothing should
>> change.
>
> You're missing the point. I'm not wishing I could be on the board to
> promote my viewpoint; I'm wishing I knew a way to scuttle the whole
> board idea from the beginning.
Then persuade people to withdraw their self-nominations. If I'd
self-nominated myself as being willing to help with something and had
then been told that I had to rank the other people who volunteered in
order of worthiness, I'd certainly have withdrawn.
> Here, perhaps, is a clearer statement of my opinion on this matter:
> If I could figure out a way of getting a copy of your PGP key I'd post
> it publicly, and thus render the whole issue moot.
You and I seem to agree about the current ballot, but if I found
myself tempted to accept slime like you as an ally I'd vomit.
Wayne Brown
> Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
>> You're missing the point. I'm not wishing I could be on the board to
>> promote my viewpoint; I'm wishing I knew a way to scuttle the whole
>> board idea from the beginning.
>
>> Here, perhaps, is a clearer statement of my opinion on this matter: If I
>> could figure out a way of getting a copy of your PGP key I'd post it
>> publicly, and thus render the whole issue moot.
>
> So, in other words, you're so convinced that you're right that you don't
> want to bother with the whole convincing other people part and you would
> be willing to stoop to illegal theft in order to force things to happen
> the way that you want.
The results of such a course of action certainly would not force things
to happen the way that *I* want. Far from restoring the dignity of
news.groups, it would cause so much disruption as to be likely to lead
to the demise of the Big 8 creation system altogether. But as unpleasant
as that is to me, it's preferable to what is happening now.
> I'm not sure why you expect anyone else to respect that position. I'm not
> particularly sure how this is different than the position of a spammer, in
> fact.
Whether anyone respects that position or not isn't my concern. What I'm
trying to do is show you that the actions of you and your cohorts are so
profoundly offensive that you have taken someone who was deeply devoted
to news.groups for almost two decades and disillusioned me to the point
of wishing to see it destroyed rather than further degraded and debased.
Russ Allbery
> Whether anyone respects that position or not isn't my concern. What I'm
> trying to do is show you that the actions of you and your cohorts are so
> profoundly offensive that you have taken someone who was deeply devoted
> to news.groups for almost two decades and disillusioned me to the point
> of wishing to see it destroyed rather than further degraded and debased.
The problem with this is that your definition of degraded and debased
involves a battle that was lost ten years ago, and for some reason you've
chosen to link that to something that really has little or nothing to do
with it. In other words, all of this angst and drama seems badly
disconnected with reality, and as a result isn't particularly convincing.
Increasing the vehemence of the emotion behind it isn't making it any more
convincing.
I'm frankly not surprised that people are upset. We're actually changing
things, in a fairly dramatic way. At first, it was just a proposal, and
there have been lots of proposals, so that was safe. We could all talk
about a new proposal and be on well-accepted ground. But then it looked
like something was going to actually be implemented, at which point
everyone who dislikes change as well as everyone who had a pet idea for
what they wanted things to look like after a major change came out of the
woodwork. It's like kicking over an ant's nest. I was expecting that, so
with all due respect to the fact that you're upset, you being upset is not
new input or something that implies to me that we're not doing the right
thing. This was always going to happen.
Look at it this way: We've been in this same logjam configuration for
over a decade now. I personally think that degree of rigidity is bad, and
just handing the reigns of the logjam over to someone else will mean that
nothing will happen for at least five years. I know this because I've
been through it. It takes at least that long to develop enough confidence
to feel able to do anything other than preserve the status quo.
I feel a responsibility to not simply hand that situation over to someone
else. We're going to break up the logjam and make change possible.
That's simply going to happen; you're going to have to find some way to
deal with it. My primary goal coming out of this is to set up a structure
and a set of people who could actually make changes if they wanted to and
are not stuck with a system that's essentially impossible to change.
Now, how that ability is used is a whole different question. It may well
be that, in the end, people don't want to make any changes, or want to
make only minor changes. That's fine. I don't really care. What matters
to me is to make change *possible* so that if we do end up with something
that looks basically like what we have now, it's because people who
*could* have done something else *chose* to implement what we have now,
rather than just stuck with the status quo because changing was too hard.
As rough as this sounds, no one is in a better position to do this than
the people who used to run the system. We've done it for long enough that
we've lost the feeling that it's somehow sacred, we're aware of the warts,
and we can force our way through inertia. Furthermore, we can force our
way through inertia *and then get out of the way* so that the result is
not simply what we think should happen (which is still guided partly by
inertia!) and instead let other people hash it out who have less baggage.
In the meantime, people who dislike change are going to be very unhappy.
That's just how it goes. I don't particularly want to make people
unhappy, but I think this is what has to happen and was already expecting
that, so those people being unhappy is not a reason to stop.
Joe Bernstein
<vito...@family-usenet.com> wrote:
> If we absolutely MUST vote, it seems fair enough to have each candidate
> post a few paragraphs about themselves and what THEY believe they can
> contribute to the committee. This would help prevent people from voting
> for or against each other based entirely on the person's usenet
> reputation.
Well, um. Keep in mind that the committee's duties are largely
undefined. In particular, I can't guess whether this committee
will be running the show when news.announce.newgroups reopens for
normal business, or will be handing the job off to a replacement
group; my wild guess is that there's about a 50% chance of each.
What I believe I can contribute to a "constitutional convention"
sort of group is... First, I've been reading news.groups for a
long time, and I've also researched a fair bit of the history of
the Big 8 from before that time - in fact, my research to date
cuts off roughly one year before I first showed up here. While
this makes me somewhat myopic as regards how other hierarchies do
things (the only other hierarchy in whose management I've worked
at all, and that only briefly, is us.*), I think knowledge of the
past of *these* hierarchies is an important thing for the people
running news.announce.newgroups to have, and I'm able to offer that.
(As are several others on the list who are senior to me, though I'm
disappointed that Jim Riley, the other person who's done substantial
historical work among news.groups regulars, has been silent in this
debate and is not on the list.)
Second, I have made my views, I hope, reasonably clear. While I
think change is not to be feared, I also think it's important to
remember the reasons for existing/past rules, and not to throw
them out indiscriminately. I'm concerned about designing systems
that are not easy to break (in particular, moderator elections are
something I've worked a lot on in RFD debates for other groups).
I'm accustomed to an oppositional stance, and I have problems with
any system that assumes that insiders will have all the answers;
hence my strong advocacy of approaches that limit the powers of
such insiders. (If there's enough wiggle room to do away with the
advisory board, in the rules being set by the existing nan moderators,
I'm not averse to that.) Flipside, I am myself *unequivocally* *an*
insider, and I also have problems with any system that strips away
insider power (for example, by trying to keep the new nan moderators
from making judgement calls). Basically, while this is a fairly
wishy-washy set of views - I'm *not*, by any serious standard, a
good substitute on this list for Ken Arromdee, say - it's still a
pretty distinct one, I think, and voters should be able to work
with it to decide how to judge me.
Third, I'm unemployed (and not looking) at this time, and able to devote
significant time to the work at hand.
Disadvantages of having me on this sort of committee:
First, I'm unemployed at this time, and able to devote significant
time to writing long posts and e-mails.
Second, I'm not the most tolerant person in the world. For
example, I'm an atheist, and I'll be rather surprised if my
mentioning that doesn't draw harsh comments from another person
on the list of volunteers; while I can live with disapproval *of
me*, if I'm presented with a system to judge that is based on that
disapproving view, I'll probably get pretty nasty. There are people
on the list who approve of, and engage in, trolling, kook-baiting,
and other Usenet pastimes that I object to; I'll be astonished if
that doesn't translate into policy differences, possibly ones of
enough weight to make the committee's work difficult.
Third, I have a long record of dropping projects or of taking too
long to finish them. As I understand the timeframe of *this* side
of the projected committee's work, it should be manageable for me,
but if it's delayed for other reasons, I can easily see myself
drifting off, and in any event, any work I undertake for the
committee is likely to need a stated deadline and a fallback in
case I miss that deadline.
That much for the "constitutional convention" side of the committee's
work. As to my merits and demerits as regards the actual running
of day-to-day news.announce.newgroups-type business, I've already
discussed those in several posts in previous threads, and there
are further indications above. But for what it's worth, I'm not
at all happy with any assumption that this committee should be both
a "constitutional convention" and a subsequent "government".
Joe Bernstein
James Farrar
<vito...@family-usenet.com> wrote:
>> > I will not be making the votes public, to avoid fanning the flames
>> > of acrimony between future Board members who might not be mutual
>> > admirers.
>
>That is unfair. If votes in a CFV are made public, the same should happen
>with the results of THIS kind of a vote.
It's worth noting, perhaps, that votes in the uk.* Committee elections
are anonymous.
Publicising the votes in an electoral process like this is potentially
disastrous, as it could lead to two factions on the Board, each
drawing its support solely from its own members. Splitting the Board
down the middle from the off would not make the Board likely to come
to consensus on many things.
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
Joe Bernstein
Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
> Each of the people on this list should now send to me their preference
> for who else is on the Board.
OK, maybe when I already asked it was buried too deep in a long post,
so I'll ask again: Define "now". What's the deadline?
Have I already missed it?
Or can I go have supper without worrying about it?
Russ Allbery seems still to be online. I'd really appreciate an
answer.
-- JLB
Russ Allbery
> Well, um. Keep in mind that the committee's duties are largely
> undefined. In particular, I can't guess whether this committee will be
> running the show when news.announce.newgroups reopens for normal
> business, or will be handing the job off to a replacement group; my wild
> guess is that there's about a 50% chance of each.
I expect it's far more likely that this group will work on the details of
a new system and do at least one more round of finding the right people to
run that system, via whatever means, before routine work starts happening.
Russ Allbery
> OK, maybe when I already asked it was buried too deep in a long post, so
> I'll ask again: Define "now". What's the deadline?
> Have I already missed it?
> Or can I go have supper without worrying about it?
> Russ Allbery seems still to be online. I'd really appreciate an answer.
The deadline certainly isn't going to be as tight as one day. Go to
supper and don't worry about it right now. :)
Jim Logajan
Actually, considering all the road blocks they put up and taking a look at
the humongous number of laws passed since (and fair number of ammendments
attached to the constitution) I think it amply proves how large groups can
come to consensus enough to enact change. Pity, in some ways. ;-)
Jim Logajan
> I'm frankly not surprised that people are upset. We're actually
> changing things, in a fairly dramatic way.
Hmmm. What ails Wayne Brown is not what ails me, though I sympathise with
both his plight and the n.a.n team's.
Consider please that you shut down the RFD/CFV process and are thereby
effectively holding all new group proposals hostage until a new system is
worked out. I have no quarrel with changing things and exploring new ideas,
but the fact that I can't resubmit sci.techniques.microscopy.scanning-probe
is slightly annoying.
Quite frankly I have no intention of waiting another 4 to 6 months to
mentor that group proposal as one of the first through a new system. That's
too long to wait even for a "stream lined" system to come on line. :-(
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H Kerman <a...@chinet.com> writes:
>>>We'll be gone before too long and then the board can make up whatever
>>>other rules that you think work better.
>>That I think will work better?
>Yes. Perhaps you missed the word "can"? (As distinct from the word
>"will.")
What I had written was, "Todd, this is your responsibility. Make a
decision. Put the team together. Don't set them against each other."
That's still my position. No matter who might administer the hierarchies,
I'll always be in favor of the administrators making decisions, rather
than pointless controversy.
BowTie
[...]
> Since the n.a.n still holds veto power, I can't see any reason not to go
> forward with all the remaining Board volunteers and seeing what happens.
> Naturally the n.a.n decision to weed out volunteers may be set in stone -
> if so, perhaps the Board they select can be persuaded to undue the n.a.n's
> decision. ;-)
Yes, I agree with this Jim, except that I really appreciate this ability to
maybe weed out a public example or 2 of potential members who just never
really get on board, so to speak. I have more interesting things to do than
constantly swim against the current. To some minimal degree at least, I feel
the members need to be a wee bit 'like minded'
:)x
Thomas Lee
<james.s...@gmail.com> writes
>On 11 Nov 2005 23:39:45 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
><vito...@family-usenet.com> wrote:
>
>>> > I will not be making the votes public, to avoid fanning the flames
>>> > of acrimony between future Board members who might not be mutual
>>> > admirers.
>>
>>That is unfair. If votes in a CFV are made public, the same should happen
>>with the results of THIS kind of a vote.
>
>It's worth noting, perhaps, that votes in the uk.* Committee elections
>are anonymous.
Indeed
>Publicising the votes in an electoral process like this is potentially
>disastrous, as it could lead to two factions on the Board, each
>drawing its support solely from its own members. Splitting the Board
>down the middle from the off would not make the Board likely to come
>to consensus on many things.
Although there is little but supposition to support this view. From the
people elected over the past 10 years, there has been no real us/them
faction. Some of the committee have had certain views (e.g. the need to
vote on any guideline change), but I don't think such views are affected
by how others vote.
Nevertheless, it's possibly best if such votes are kept confidential,
but with the ability of a voter to ensure his vote was counted.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Thomas Lee
<fwb...@bellsouth.net> writes
>You're missing the point. I'm not wishing I could be on the board to
>promote my viewpoint; I'm wishing I knew a way to scuttle the whole
>board idea from the beginning.
>
>Here, perhaps, is a clearer statement of my opinion on this matter: If
>I could figure out a way of getting a copy of your PGP key I'd post it
>publicly, and thus render the whole issue moot.
I can appreciate your frustration. But I'm unclear why posting the pgp
key would actually be of any real help, except to the loonies (and I am
not for a moment suggesting you are one of them).
Wayne Brown
Well, let's see: Proponents would skip the news.groups rigmarole and
issue their own control messages. Trolls and "loonies" would create
nonsense groups to annoy each other. More news admins probably would
become disgusted enough with the whole mess to disable their servers'
automatic processing of newgroup messages and add groups only at the
request of their users. Propagation of new groups would become more
fragmented than it already is, and the whole newsgroup creation system
might well dissolve into anarchy. In any case, the nan mods, their
grand plans for a New Order, and probably news.groups itself would
become irrelevant.
I'd prefer that to the current situation.
Wayne Brown
> Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
>> Whether anyone respects that position or not isn't my concern. What I'm
>> trying to do is show you that the actions of you and your cohorts are so
>> profoundly offensive that you have taken someone who was deeply devoted
>> to news.groups for almost two decades and disillusioned me to the point
>> of wishing to see it destroyed rather than further degraded and debased.
>
> The problem with this is that your definition of degraded and debased
> involves a battle that was lost ten years ago, and for some reason you've
> chosen to link that to something that really has little or nothing to do
> with it. In other words, all of this angst and drama seems badly
> disconnected with reality, and as a result isn't particularly convincing.
> Increasing the vehemence of the emotion behind it isn't making it any more
> convincing.
The nice thing about USENET is that, in contrast to "real life," reality
is whatever the admins define it to be. The battle was only lost
if you *say* it was lost. You, Todd and the others could simply say
"USENET is just what it always was and it will be managed accordingly"
and that's the way it would be. So don't try to claim that you're bowing
to inevitable change, because it only changes if you *want* it to change.
That's why I've lost all respect for you guys: Because you're *choosing*
to make these changes, when you have the power to maintain the status
quo forever, no matter how many thousands (or millions) want it otherwise.
BowTie
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>> Whether anyone respects that position or not isn't my concern. What I'm
>>> trying to do is show you that the actions of you and your cohorts are so
>>> profoundly offensive that you have taken someone who was deeply devoted
>>> to news.groups for almost two decades and disillusioned me to the point
>>> of wishing to see it destroyed rather than further degraded and debased.
all fine, but what have *you* done for the place?
>> The problem with this is that your definition of degraded and debased
>> involves a battle that was lost ten years ago, and for some reason you've
>> chosen to link that to something that really has little or nothing to do
>> with it. In other words, all of this angst and drama seems badly
>> disconnected with reality, and as a result isn't particularly convincing.
>> Increasing the vehemence of the emotion behind it isn't making it any more
>> convincing.
> The nice thing about USENET is that, in contrast to "real life," reality
> is whatever the admins define it to be. The battle was only lost
> if you *say* it was lost. You, Todd and the others could simply say
> "USENET is just what it always was and it will be managed accordingly"
> and that's the way it would be. So don't try to claim that you're bowing
> to inevitable change, because it only changes if you *want* it to change.
Why not offer to be a nanomod replacement volunteer?
there are at least 2 seats open.
Mayhaps you could be the head Cahoona and have it your way, without all the
tussle.
> That's why I've lost all respect for you guys: Because you're *choosing*
> to make these changes, when you have the power to maintain the status
> quo forever, no matter how many thousands (or millions) want it otherwise.
Why would you want to ignore millions?
they're the content providers who bring the 'good' to the readers.
next thing you know, they'll be searching out web forums to dispense their
helpful knowledge. :(oops, they're already doing that :((
:)x
Wayne Brown
> "Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>
>> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
>>>> Whether anyone respects that position or not isn't my concern. What I'm
>>>> trying to do is show you that the actions of you and your cohorts are so
>>>> profoundly offensive that you have taken someone who was deeply devoted
>>>> to news.groups for almost two decades and disillusioned me to the point
>>>> of wishing to see it destroyed rather than further degraded and debased.
>
> all fine, but what have *you* done for the place?
Once upon a time, back when Spaf was still running things (i.e.,
when things were done *right*) I admin'ed a couple of B News and C
News servers. Since then I've been one of the news.groups regulars
who've tried to help advise proponents (or in some cases, opponents)
on getting what they want. Of course, that was when the business of
news.groups was newsgroup creation, rather than serving as a vehicle for
Russ and Todd to build up their egos with a Grand Scheme to Save USENET
from their trumped-up so-called "problems."
>
>>> The problem with this is that your definition of degraded and debased
>>> involves a battle that was lost ten years ago, and for some reason you've
>>> chosen to link that to something that really has little or nothing to do
>>> with it. In other words, all of this angst and drama seems badly
>>> disconnected with reality, and as a result isn't particularly convincing.
>>> Increasing the vehemence of the emotion behind it isn't making it any more
>>> convincing.
>
>> The nice thing about USENET is that, in contrast to "real life," reality
>> is whatever the admins define it to be. The battle was only lost
>> if you *say* it was lost. You, Todd and the others could simply say
>> "USENET is just what it always was and it will be managed accordingly"
>> and that's the way it would be. So don't try to claim that you're bowing
>> to inevitable change, because it only changes if you *want* it to change.
>
> Why not offer to be a nanomod replacement volunteer?
> there are at least 2 seats open.
>
> Mayhaps you could be the head Cahoona and have it your way, without all the
> tussle.
I'm no longer a news admin, and I don't think anyone but an admin
should do that job. Besides, I really have no desire for the job,
though I'd have been (reluctantly) willing if no one else was. But I'm
sure there are much better qualified people than me who would love to be
given absolute and unquestionable authority over Big 8 administration,
if only the nan mods would do a little looking. I don't want to be the
"Big Cahuna," but there definitely ought to be one -- and *only* one --
person in that position.
>
>> That's why I've lost all respect for you guys: Because you're *choosing*
>> to make these changes, when you have the power to maintain the status
>> quo forever, no matter how many thousands (or millions) want it otherwise.
>
> Why would you want to ignore millions?
> they're the content providers who bring the 'good' to the readers.
> next thing you know, they'll be searching out web forums to dispense their
> helpful knowledge. :(oops, they're already doing that :((
Most of them don't know, or want or need to know, how the Big 8 is
administered. They can go right on providing content while remaining
blissfully ignorant of what happens in news.groups. The few who show
up here should be strongly encouraged to fall into line or else be sent
packing. Any who prefer web forums over USENET shouldn't be here anyway.
Rebecca Ore
> Of course, that was when the business of
> news.groups was newsgroup creation, rather than serving as a vehicle for
> Russ and Todd to build up their egos with a Grand Scheme to Save USENET
> from their trumped-up so-called "problems."
I don't think the whole vote fraud, ISPs creating groups with control
messages if the group was on Google Groups, etc. was any kind of
conspiracy to build up Russ's and Todd's egos. Or have you been away
for the last two years?
--
Rebecca Ore
BowTie
> BowTie <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
>> "Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>>> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>> Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>>>>> Whether anyone respects that position or not isn't my concern. What I'm
>>>>> trying to do is show you that the actions of you and your cohorts are so
>>>>> profoundly offensive that you have taken someone who was deeply devoted
>>>>> to news.groups for almost two decades and disillusioned me to the point
>>>>> of wishing to see it destroyed rather than further degraded and debased.
>> all fine, but what have *you* done for the place?
> Once upon a time, back when Spaf was still running things (i.e.,
> when things were done *right*) I admin'ed a couple of B News and C
> News servers. Since then I've been one of the news.groups regulars
> who've tried to help advise proponents (or in some cases, opponents)
> on getting what they want. Of course, that was when the business of
> news.groups was newsgroup creation, rather than serving as a vehicle for
> Russ and Todd to build up their egos with a Grand Scheme to Save USENET
> from their trumped-up so-called "problems."
Well ok, but I do disagree that Russ and Todd trumped up this problem. If one
eliminates the bogus votes from CFVs, during the past, say 2 years, I'm
doubtful a single group would have been formed. All of that tugging and time
expenditure, by helping news.groupers, all for naught. Without change, no one
can effectively do their jobs.
I too agree there needs to ultimately be one person in charge. That person
could well be the chairperson of the Board, or head of the Executive
Committee.
>>> That's why I've lost all respect for you guys: Because you're *choosing*
>>> to make these changes, when you have the power to maintain the status
>>> quo forever, no matter how many thousands (or millions) want it otherwise.
>> Why would you want to ignore millions?
>> they're the content providers who bring the 'good' to the readers.
>> next thing you know, they'll be searching out web forums to dispense their
>> helpful knowledge. :(oops, they're already doing that :((
> Most of them don't know, or want or need to know, how the Big 8 is
> administered.
Well they don't, unless they have a group problem, which would help their
community if they can get their charter amended, then able to follow
through appropriate channels to get a problem individual/people tossed.
> They can go right on providing content while remaining
> blissfully ignorant of what happens in news.groups. The few who show
> up here should be strongly encouraged to fall into line or else be sent
> packing.
Hasn't that been the problem? When people are sent packing, they don't feel
connected to a solution.
> Any who prefer web forums over USENET shouldn't be here anyway.
Maybe the reason they 'prefer', is because they have been powerless to solve
problems within their own groups/communities. Those problems get fixed in the
web forums, by whatever means.
:)x
Thomas Lee
<bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet@?.?.invalid> writes
>I too agree there needs to ultimately be one person in charge. That person
>could well be the chairperson of the Board, or head of the Executive
>Committee.
I'm not totally in agreement with this. I think there needs to be one
person who is the instrument by which key things happen, but I don't
think he should be news czar.
IN uk.* we have Control who does much of the mundane work. We also have
a deputy control in case of absence. It is these two who are the keepers
of the pgp keys. As a committee member, I know a location where I could
get these if the unthinkable happened (both controls fall under the
bus), but would plan to never use that knowledge.
But at the end of the day, it's the committee that is responsible. In
uk.* we do delegate a lot of common sense to control - he can post an
RFD without the committee seeing it, he communicates and often
negotiates directly with the proponent. This is all in the name of
simplifying the creation of groups. However, it is ultimately the
committee that is responsible for the decisions.
Jim Logajan
> alt.binaries.sci.techniques.microscopy.scanning-probe.
> Sounds good, eh? You could post microscopy porn.
With all the tunneling, probing, and scanning that spmers already do, that
might be redundant. After a long day of running their probes over delicate
surfaces they may find no energy left for microscopy porn.
But at least the binaries would be small....
Todd Michel McComb
Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>Speaking of instructions: What's the deadline?
Well, I'm kind of leaving that to your own pace. On the other hand,
I think we all know that the longer this drags out, the more nonsense
there'll be. I'd sure love to have everything this coming week.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Todd Michel McComb
edward ohare <edward...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>Concerning how many will be selected, it seems likely that there
>will be a fairly obvious cut off point after people have voted.
Well, that's the hope. If it's not true, that'll make our task
harder.
I certainly don't think people need to be *against* each other at
all. It depends entirely on the attitude they take, just as the
resulting decision-making process will depend on the attitude they
take.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Todd Michel McComb
Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
>Consider please that you shut down the RFD/CFV process
It shut down because there's no one to administrate it, a fact you
seem to refuse to grasp.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Jim Logajan
> Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
>>Consider please that you shut down the RFD/CFV process
>
I am willing to join the nan team to handle the administration of the old
RFD/CFV process so it can be used until a new process is established. I'm
also willing to rejoin the UVV if vote takers are needed. I sent an offer
to Bill Aten to that effect earlier this week.
Thomas Lee
<fwb...@bellsouth.net> writes
>Well, let's see: Proponents would skip the news.groups rigmarole and
>issue their own control messages.
It happens now. Most of them can fortunately be ignored. Or they can use
alt/free/google.
If you want a global hierarchy then some rules and regulations are
needed. Ultimately, we want news admins to trust our control messages
and act on them.
> Trolls and "loonies" would create nonsense groups to annoy each other.
>More news admins probably would become disgusted enough with the whole
>mess to disable their servers' automatic processing of newgroup
>messages and add groups only at the request of their users.
I am unclear why this is a good thing. I'm certain it would cause a lot
of ISPs to turn off news totally.
> Propagation of new groups would become more fragmented than it already
>is, and the whole newsgroup creation system might well dissolve into
>anarchy. In any case, the nan mods, their grand plans for a New Order,
>and probably news.groups itself would become irrelevant.
Again, I can't see that this is useful or helpful. I guess I care about
net news. It has helped me immensely in my professional live and has
provided much personal growth too. I'm not willing to just cave in and
hand over the keys.
Admittedly, I've spent much of my time in uk.* but I do think net news
can be run well by volunteers and without the chaos you advocate.
>I'd prefer that to the current situation.
I'd prefer order to chaos. I respect the traditions of the Big-8 and
really want to make things better. I genuinely believe uk.* has solved
many of these problems, although I'm the first to admit we don't have
the scale issues and don't have all the answers. I'm willing to see if
we can make it better.
You may be right, maybe the answer is to quit and go home. I think
progress can be made. and what I'm pretty certain of is that posting the
big-8 pgp keys is not the best way to go improve things, however
tempting it may be or how good it might feel.
Todd Michel McComb
Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
>I am willing to join the nan team to handle the administration of
>the old RFD/CFV process so it can be used until a new process is
>established.
If you can do that without us, administrate away. We won't be
helping.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Wayne Brown
>
> Well ok, but I do disagree that Russ and Todd trumped up this problem. If one
> eliminates the bogus votes from CFVs, during the past, say 2 years, I'm
> doubtful a single group would have been formed. All of that tugging and time
> expenditure, by helping news.groupers, all for naught. Without change, no one
> can effectively do their jobs.
The system in use during the past two years (and for a number of prior
years) was designed to create groups *only* if they received at least
100 YES votes and a 2/3 majority. If enough non-bogus YES votes were
received to meet the requirements and the groups didn't get created,
then I'd agree there was a problem. But if no groups were created
during a two-year (or ten-year) period because not enough people voted,
then I'd say the system was working as designed.
>
> I too agree there needs to ultimately be one person in charge. That person
> could well be the chairperson of the Board, or head of the Executive
> Committee.
If there's one person in charge, then there's no need for a Board
or Committee. You're talking about a pyramid structure, with the "one
person" at the top, then a broadening power base consisting of whatever
committees are selected and, presumably, the users below that as the
real power base. I'm talking about an inverted pyramid, with the news
admins at the top, and all their power and authority narrowing down to
a single point, occupied by one person. The users would have no place
in the structure and no power or control at all.
This "one person" would make all decisions and do everything. There
would be no need for long, involved battles in news.groups because the
only thing that would matter would be convincing the "USENET czar" to
grant your request. No one else's opinions or support would matter.
There would be no appeal or recourse from the czar's decisions.
And the admins would be off the hook, because whenever their users
complained, they could just say, "Sorry, but it's out of our hands.
Someone else controls USENET, and he doesn't work here." Of course,
that wouldn't work with users clueful enough to know that the czar's
power was delegated from the admins, but those users would be so few
and far between that it wouldn't be much of a problem.
As for the rest of your comments, about the users and their "communities,"
and charter changes, and dealing with trolls/abusive posters, and people
going to web forums because they don't feel "connected:" Once the
group is created, the czar's part is over. The czar (and we "unofficial"
participants in news.groups) would be concerned with the overall structure
of USENET; what happens in individual groups is the users' problem.
Wayne Brown
Those weren't the "problems" presented as the reason for the changes.
This started with the rules being changed after a proposed group failed
its vote, because Russ and Todd think it's a problem if not enough users
are motivated enough to vote. That's what I call a "trumped-up" problem.
Walter Roberson
>> Most of them don't know, or want or need to know, how the Big 8 is
>> administered.
>Well they don't, unless they have a group problem, which would help their
>community if they can get their charter amended, then able to follow
>through appropriate channels to get a problem individual/people tossed.
For what it's worth: I've been observing a deep divide between
old school
"The charter is very important and even minor transgressions
should be put down."
and new school
"Charters? Never heard of them, and I wouldn't pay attention to
one anyhow. I have a *right* to post whatever I want where-ever I
want, and no-one has a right to deny me that by disagreeing with
what or how I post. Your ancient history is of no significance
next to my rights and my gratifications.
Now do my homework for me, you scummy idiots."
Certainly there are quite a few moderate and tolerant newsgroups,
but the two groups I describe above appear to have little success
in communicating or compromising with each other.
Now, some people are Charterists under the Hazing principle --
"We had to go through this to be accepted, and now that we are 'In',
we are going to see to it that everyone else has to go through the same
misery." Others -respect- charters on the grounds that "A lot of
things were tried, and this is what we found *worked* in everyone's
best interests; there is considered reason behind this tradition."
But how do you explain the values and value of those traditions
to a mass of people accustomed to information on demand
(Just Google It (TM)) and to gratification on demand (e.g.,
Napster and sons, or downloading pirated movies) ? There is no
Rememberance Day for the pioneers of Usenet.
--
Many food scientists have reported chocolate to be the single most
craved food. -- Northwestern University, 2001
Thomas Lee
<robe...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> writes
>For what it's worth: I've been observing a deep divide between old
>school
>
> "The charter is very important and even minor transgressions
> should be put down."
>
>and new school
>
> "Charters? Never heard of them, and I wouldn't pay attention to
> one anyhow. I have a *right* to post whatever I want where-ever I
> want, and no-one has a right to deny me that by disagreeing with
> what or how I post. Your ancient history is of no significance
> next to my rights and my gratifications.
>
> Now do my homework for me, you scummy idiots."
Put me down as a lot closer the former than the latter, but with
flexibility. The odd mistake, or the occasional troll is not the end of
the world. But repeated, deliberate off topic posting is inappropriate
and should be discouraged.
>Certainly there are quite a few moderate and tolerant newsgroups, but
>the two groups I describe above appear to have little success in
>communicating or compromising with each other.
Indeed. The latter group also tend to want to post binaries, because
their newsreader allows them and they are on broadband. :-(
>But how do you explain the values and value of those traditions to a
>mass of people accustomed to information on demand (Just Google It
>(TM)) and to gratification on demand (e.g., Napster and sons, or
>downloading pirated movies) ? There is no Rememberance Day for the
>pioneers of Usenet.
I'm not sure all of usenet is about instant gratification.
Jonathan Kamens
>Look at news.groups right now, for example; we
>could keep talking about all this here forever without arriving at any
>workable conclusion or actually implementing things (and in fact have been
>for the past decade).
Indeed, this is exactly why I went almost completely silent shortly
after this discussion started. Too many people saying the same thing
too many times using too many words.
I'm willing to help, which is why I volunteered, but I've got a busy
personal life, a full-time job, and two other institutions for which I
engage in volunteer activities which take up a great deal of my time.
I'm hoping that the Board, or whatever it ends up being called, can
discuss and decide issues with far less bloat than we've been seeing in
the recent discussions in news.groups.
Jonathan Kamens
>Well... Is the British House of Commons too large to be effective?
>How about the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives?
Yes. As others have pointed out, most of their work is done in
committees or back rooms.
Also, most members of those bodies work on them full-time and still
can't wrap their brains around even a small portion of the work that
the bodies do. These bodies are so much larger because they have
orders of magnitude more work to do than will the Board we're
discussing, and hence that work needs to be divided up among a larger
number of people.
Finally, the number of people participating in this discussion in
news.groups is far lower than the size of any of the bodies you
mentioned, and it's WAY out of hand. If I end up getting put on the
board, and the discussion is anywhere near as bloated as what's
happening in news.groups, I'll resign. I just don't have the time to
waste.
>Was the number of members of the U.S. Constitutional convention too large
>to generate a document?
If I recall correctly, there was one delegate per state to the U.S.
Constitutional convention, which means that I suspect the Usenet Board
is going to be about the same size, which means that that's a bad
example :-).
Jonathan Kamens
>The nice thing about USENET is that, in contrast to "real life," reality
>is whatever the admins define it to be.
That's delusional nonsense.
Kathy Morgan
> Concerning how many will be selected, it seems likely that there will
> be a fairly obvious cut off point after people have voted.
I agree.
--
Kathy - Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/>
OE-quotefix can fix OE:
<http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/>
Jim Logajan
> Finally, the number of people participating in this discussion in
> news.groups is far lower than the size of any of the bodies you
> mentioned, and it's WAY out of hand.
The board hasn't even begun deliberations yet as far as I know - our
news.groups babble shouldn't be confused for Board discussions you'll be
involved in. There are no ground rules for news.groups discussions, while a
Board would (hopefully) have time limits (among other limits). If no time
limits are established for when votes are to take place after a proposal
has been put forth, then it matters very little how large the board is. It
will indeed become indistinguisable from news.groups babble.
> If I end up getting put on the
> board, and the discussion is anywhere near as bloated as what's
> happening in news.groups, I'll resign. I just don't have the time to
> waste.
The solution to these issues was worked out a zillion years ago - the board
has to have a chairman who sets debate time limits and calls a vote at the
end. All these comparisons to how news.groups discussions go on and on are
irrelevant because it is the proverbial apples to oranges comparison. Or it
should be - it depends on what ground rules the nan team establishes.
I'm sure you've heard of Robert's Rules of Order? Here's one summary:
http://www.robertsrules.org/
I don't see how it can be adopted for Usenet, or whether it would be wise
to attempt the task (rather overkill I think), but the point I'm trying to
make mentioning it at all is that a minimum of structure enforced by a
chair (pretty obvious who that will be in this case unless they elect to
delegate the task to a proxy) can expedite things immensely. (Less than a
dozen simple rules should suffice, I think.)
> If I recall correctly, there was one delegate per state to the U.S.
> Constitutional convention,
I'm afraid you recall incorrectly. I double checked the number before
including it as an example. There were 55 delegates involved in composing
the document:
BowTie
> j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>> Finally, the number of people participating in this discussion in
>> news.groups is far lower than the size of any of the bodies you
>> mentioned, and it's WAY out of hand.
> The board hasn't even begun deliberations yet as far as I know - our
> news.groups babble shouldn't be confused for Board discussions you'll be
> involved in. There are no ground rules for news.groups discussions, while a
> Board would (hopefully) have time limits (among other limits). If no time
> limits are established for when votes are to take place after a proposal
> has been put forth, then it matters very little how large the board is. It
> will indeed become indistinguisable from news.groups babble.
This may require a strong chair, which I support
>> If I end up getting put on the
>> board, and the discussion is anywhere near as bloated as what's
>> happening in news.groups, I'll resign. I just don't have the time to
>> waste.
> The solution to these issues was worked out a zillion years ago - the board
> has to have a chairman who sets debate time limits and calls a vote at the
> end. All these comparisons to how news.groups discussions go on and on are >
> irrelevant because it is the proverbial apples to oranges comparison. Or it
> should be - it depends on what ground rules the nan team establishes.
>
> I'm sure you've heard of Robert's Rules of Order? Here's one summary:
> http://www.robertsrules.org/
> I don't see how it can be adopted for Usenet, or whether it would be wise
> to attempt the task (rather overkill I think), but the point I'm trying to
> make mentioning it at all is that a minimum of structure enforced by a
> chair (pretty obvious who that will be in this case unless they elect to
> delegate the task to a proxy) can expedite things immensely. (Less than a
> dozen simple rules should suffice, I think.)
Good idea, (has my *yea*)
which rules would you select for starters?
:)x
James Farrar
>In message <qbcan1li7sm04frqm...@4ax.com>, James Farrar
><james.s...@gmail.com> writes
>>Publicising the votes in an electoral process like this is potentially
>>disastrous, as it could lead to two factions on the Board, each
>>drawing its support solely from its own members. Splitting the Board
>>down the middle from the off would not make the Board likely to come
>>to consensus on many things.
>
>Although there is little but supposition to support this view. From the
>people elected over the past 10 years, there has been no real us/them
>faction. Some of the committee have had certain views (e.g. the need to
>vote on any guideline change), but I don't think such views are affected
>by how others vote.
I'm not referring to the uk.* Committee. Electing a Committee for a
well-established structure is a totally different beast to electing a
Board like this that will be writing the rules.
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
James Farrar
McComb) wrote:
So there's no-one to do it because you refuse to let anyone do it; and
you haven't shut the process down?
Run that one past me again.
Todd Michel McComb
James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm not referring to the uk.* Committee. Electing a Committee for
>a well-established structure is a totally different beast to
>electing a Board like this that will be writing the rules.
Thank you for understanding that.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Todd Michel McComb
BowTie <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
>Good idea, (has my *yea*)
>which rules would you select for starters?
Are you planning to vote on the Board members, Steve?
TMM
Todd Michel McComb
James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So there's no-one to do it because you refuse to let anyone do it;
>and you haven't shut the process down?
I'd say we've shut the process down. I'm not sure what point of
distinction you want to make. Anyway, once the new people are ready
to start handling proposals, then proposals will be handled. I
don't think there's anything else that needs to be said about it.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
BowTie
Yes, though if I'm not mistaking, there was a short moment granted to do so.
I wanted to see some play here, as was suggested.
Here, let me tell you where I'm coming from.
Though I think a person or 2 on the list has not been easy for me to get along
with in past discussions, they do bring a diversity, with good knowledge. My
personal tendency toward this vote, is to start with nearly all who have
volunteered and then allow the board to weed from there, possibly allow
selecting a few new nominees as this progresses. I agree with what another,
or two, maybe even yourself has stated, and that is, this group of volunteers
should be allowed to assemble the final board(?) As far as I'm concerned,
most, maybe all, may well comprise the Board.
I'll follow this up with an email to you, to register my formal position.
Thanks for you indulgence and diligence Todd
Steve
Todd Michel McComb
BowTie <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
>I wanted to see some play here, as was suggested.
Yes, OK, I didn't mean to rush you, but as stated, I'd really love
to get this step wrapped up this week.
TMM
Dr John Stockton
Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:32:46, seen in news:news.groups, edward ohare
<edward...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> posted :
>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:31:06 +0000 (GMT),
>paul$@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk (Paul Carpenter) wrote:
>
>
>>When the uk.* system wast started (and I remember it being started and
>>at one time served my three years on the committee), general discussion in
>>the then config group agreed that a body should be set up of a size to be
>>representative but not unwieldy. We ended up with a size of 13 to always
>>have the chance of most occassions being no deadlock.
>
>
>Yea, I previously suggested 10-15 as a max size for the reasons you
>mention. I can't believe anyone thinks having 24 members is a good
>idea. It needs to be cut down.
It also needs to be extended.
Only two of those listed are manifestly associated with anywhere other
than North America, though MXM can be hoped to be reasonably
internationalist.
More of them are, however, recognisable as being of, or closely
associated with, the Ancien Régime.
A committee selected from those, by whatever means, cannot be
representative of the Big-8 user community.
That sort of list of self-nominators is only to be expected, of course,
since the invitation has not been presented to the Big-8 user community;
it was sent to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
news.admin.hierarchies, uk.net.news.config and as far as I can see to no
others.
By allowing votes only from those willing to serve on what he manifestly
never intended to be a democratically-chosen representative board, Todd
McComb is again showing his total commitment to authoritanarianism.
Perhaps, having failed himself, he intends that his successors should
also fail.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Vito Kuhn
> On 11 Nov 2005 23:39:45 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
> <vito...@family-usenet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I will not be making the votes public, to avoid fanning the flames
> >> > of acrimony between future Board members who might not be mutual
> >> > admirers.
> >
> > That is unfair. If votes in a CFV are made public, the same should
> > happen with the results of THIS kind of a vote.
>
> It's worth noting, perhaps, that votes in the uk.* Committee elections
> are anonymous.
>
> Publicising the votes in an electoral process like this is potentially
> disastrous, as it could lead to two factions on the Board, each
> drawing its support solely from its own members. Splitting the Board
> down the middle from the off would not make the Board likely to come
> to consensus on many things.
I disagree that a secret vote is the better way to go. We're all grown
men and women. Hurt feelings do not justify the need to throw
transparency out the window. People have to work with people they don't
like all the time in life, and it's up to each person to deal with it and
not let that interfere with their responsibilities.
I guess I'll be the first to post his list in public. Here are my votes,
just as I sent to Todd.
1-"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu>
2-ru.i...@usask.ca
3-Brian Edmonds <br...@gweep.ca>
4-tsk...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
5-Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com>
6-...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens)
7-Yves Bellefeuille <y...@storm.ca>
8-"Tom Perrett" <to...@st.net.au>
9-Darren Wyn Rees <dar...@cymraeg.orgNOSPAM>
10-Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov>
11-Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk>
12-David Matthewman <da...@matthewman.org>
13-Stephen M. Adams <ada...@no.spam>
14-Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net>
15-...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens)
15-James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com>
16-BarB <pat...@earthlink.net>
17-Leo G Simonetta <lsimo...@newsguy.com>
18-st...@shell.peak.org (John Stanley)
19-Otaku <Ot...@troll4fun.com>
20-K. A. Cannon <kaca...@insurgent.orgy>
21-"BowTie" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet>
22-Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com>
The first five are the people I am familiar with enough to rank as my top
choices. The people numbered 18-22 are those I consider excessively
disruptive individuals. The people numbered 6-17 are those I am less
familiar with and I honestly don't know enough about these people to rank
them in any fair way, but Todd required the ranking of EVERYONE on the
list, so I had to mostly guess on these individuals.
I think a better way to do this would be to ask each voter to send three
lists. Every person on each list would NOT be ranked. One list for top
choices (YES votes) in no particular order. Another list for least
desirable choices (NO votes) in no particular order. A third list for any
persons that a voters does know enough about to place into either
category. These lists WOULD be made public, here in news.groups, for
discussion. The final members of the committee would be selected in
public by consensus, after a discussion involving ALL current news.groups
participants.
Here go my lists:
YES (IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER)
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu>
ru.ig...@usask.ca
Brian Edmonds <br...@gweep.ca>
tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com>
NO (IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER)
sta...@shell.peak.org (John Stanley)
Otaku <Ot...@troll4fun.com>
K. A. Cannon <kaca...@insurgent.orgy>
"BowTie" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet>
Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com>
NOT ENOUGH INFO TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST
j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens)
Yves Bellefeuille <y...@storm.ca>
"Tom Perrett" <to...@st.net.au>
Darren Wyn Rees <dar...@cymraeg.orgNOSPAM>
Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov>
Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk>
David Matthewman <da...@matthewman.org>
Stephen M. Adams <ada...@no.spam>
Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net>
j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens)
James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com>
BarB <pat...@earthlink.net>
Leo G Simonetta <lsimo...@newsguy.com>
VK
Thomas Lee
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> writes
>It also needs to be extended.
RFD for it.
>Only two of those listed are manifestly associated with anywhere other
>than North America, though MXM can be hoped to be reasonably
>internationalist.
RFD for a change if you want one.
>More of them are, however, recognisable as being of, or closely
>associated with, the Ancien Régime.
RFD for a change if you want one.
>A committee selected from those, by whatever means, cannot be
>representative of the Big-8 user community.
RFD for a change if you want one.
>That sort of list of self-nominators is only to be expected, of course,
>since the invitation has not been presented to the Big-8 user community;
>it was sent to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
>news.admin.hierarchies, uk.net.news.config and as far as I can see to no
>others.
RFD for a change if you want one.
>By allowing votes only from those willing to serve on what he manifestly
>never intended to be a democratically-chosen representative board, Todd
>McComb is again showing his total commitment to authoritanarianism.
>Perhaps, having failed himself, he intends that his successors should
>also fail.
RFD for a change if you want one.
John, all you've done is whine, and demand folks do something.
Well the something I am doing is to ask you to put up or shut up. If you
want to play a part, then please do so. But sitting in your high chair,
throwing rocks is not helpful.
edward ohare
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Only two of those listed are manifestly associated with anywhere other
>than North America, though MXM can be hoped to be reasonably
>internationalist.
>
>More of them are, however, recognisable as being of, or closely
>associated with, the Ancien Régime.
>
>A committee selected from those, by whatever means, cannot be
>representative of the Big-8 user community.
I don't see that representation by geographic area is, or should be, a
goal. Interest in the topics discussed in Big 8 is what matters.
That the majority of those people happen to be from North America is
just the way it is.
>
>That sort of list of self-nominators is only to be expected, of course,
>since the invitation has not been presented to the Big-8 user community;
>it was sent to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
>news.admin.hierarchies, uk.net.news.config and as far as I can see to no
>others.
So how are you going to do this without spamming? Besides, it should
be evident that groupers generally are not interested in what goes on
in news.groups (or else they'd be here) and in addition don't want
their normal Usenet activities in the groups they use disrupted by
intrusions on the subject of hierarchy management.
People don't want to build their cars. They just want to drive them.
They don't want to change the oil. They just want to drive them.
Some won't even be bothered to pay someone to change the oil. They
just want to drive them. Of course, its their fault when their cars
(or newsgroups) break, but that still doesn't affect their apathy.
>
>
>By allowing votes only from those willing to serve on what he manifestly
>never intended to be a democratically-chosen representative board, Todd
>McComb is again showing his total commitment to authoritanarianism.
>Perhaps, having failed himself, he intends that his successors should
>also fail.
>
Oh, I think his method is kind of a cute twist!
Thomas Lee
<edward...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> writes
>>A committee selected from those, by whatever means, cannot be
>>representative of the Big-8 user community.
>
>
>I don't see that representation by geographic area is, or should be, a
>goal. Interest in the topics discussed in Big 8 is what matters.
>That the majority of those people happen to be from North America is
>just the way it is.
True. But the uber-charter should attempt to encourage geographic
diversity on 'the committee'.
>>That sort of list of self-nominators is only to be expected, of course,
>>since the invitation has not been presented to the Big-8 user community;
>>it was sent to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
>>news.admin.hierarchies, uk.net.news.config and as far as I can see to no
>>others.
>
>
>So how are you going to do this without spamming?
It can not be done. We tried it in the (considerably smaller) uk.* and
it was not well received.
> Besides, it should
>be evident that groupers generally are not interested in what goes on
>in news.groups (or else they'd be here) and in addition don't want
>their normal Usenet activities in the groups they use disrupted by
>intrusions on the subject of hierarchy management.
Yup.
>People don't want to build their cars. They just want to drive them.
>They don't want to change the oil. They just want to drive them.
>Some won't even be bothered to pay someone to change the oil. They
>just want to drive them. Of course, its their fault when their cars
>(or newsgroups) break, but that still doesn't affect their apathy.
At the same time, if we, proposed changes should be posted to affected
groups.
Tim Skirvin
>I have no quarrel with changing things and exploring new ideas, but the
>fact that I can't resubmit sci.techniques.microscopy.scanning-probe is
>slightly annoying.
Sounds like a reasonable group to me. If only I could submit your
proposal to an Executive Committee of some sort...
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/projects/ Skirv's Projects
Dr John Stockton
00:34:36, seen in news:news.groups, Vito Kuhn <vitokuhn@family-
usenet.com> posted :
>I think a better way to do this would be to ask each voter to send three
>lists. Every person on each list would NOT be ranked. One list for top
>choices (YES votes) in no particular order. Another list for least
>desirable choices (NO votes) in no particular order. A third list for any
>persons that a voters does know enough about to place into either
>category. These lists WOULD be made public, here in news.groups, for
>discussion. The final members of the committee would be selected in
>public by consensus, after a discussion involving ALL current news.groups
>participants.
That's basically a much better scheme, except that it seems you did not
bother to check it before you sent it - one sentence lacks something
like a "not" - and it needs re-writing by a native speaker of English (I
suspect you're not even American).
You are right that a voter should not be forced to put in significant
sequence the names people that he does not wish to put in sequence.
The answers to that include giving everyone a mark of acceptability on a
scale of, say, -1 to +1 (your scheme) or -5 to +5 or ...; and giving
each voter 100 points to distribute entirely as he wishes (perhaps
allowing points to be applied negatively; and IIRC Condorcet voting, as
used for the UK Committee.
However, it's not clear that a decision can be made and seen to be made
by consensus, given the prevalence of loud-mouthed wind-bags; ISTM that
authoritarian choice should be ruled out, and a voting system is needed.
However, the existing exercise has from the start been fatally flawed,
since there has been no organised attempt to bring it to the attention
of the average Big-8 reader.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Dr John Stockton
Mon, 14 Nov 2005 06:59:23, seen in news:news.groups, edward ohare
<edward...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> posted :
>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:23:14 +0000, Dr John Stockton
><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Only two of those listed are manifestly associated with anywhere other
>>than North America, though MXM can be hoped to be reasonably
>>internationalist.
>>
>>More of them are, however, recognisable as being of, or closely
>>associated with, the Ancien Régime.
>>
>>A committee selected from those, by whatever means, cannot be
>>representative of the Big-8 user community.
>
>
>I don't see that representation by geographic area is, or should be, a
>goal. Interest in the topics discussed in Big 8 is what matters.
>That the majority of those people happen to be from North America is
>just the way it is.
You would not; you are, it seems, an American. You have therefore a
fervent belief in democracy, provided that it is under US control. The
other six billion or more people in the world cannot reasonably be
expected to agree.
>>That sort of list of self-nominators is only to be expected, of course,
>>since the invitation has not been presented to the Big-8 user community;
>>it was sent to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
>>news.admin.hierarchies, uk.net.news.config and as far as I can see to no
>>others.
>
>
>So how are you going to do this without spamming? Besides, it should
>be evident that groupers generally are not interested in what goes on
>in news.groups (or else they'd be here)
False logic. They are not interested enough in matters affecting groups
that they do not use to come here. They are interested in what affects
their groups - even only if to resent it - but in many cases they prefer
not to argue with a domineering Cabal which has evidently no interest in
discovering their views.
They deserve to be given a chance to participate in the construction of
a new system, one in which they may feel that their interests are
expressed, understood, and heeded.
Reasonable "official" communication with them is not spamming, though
some forms may fall foul of precautions against true abuse of the net or
of news.
While it would be desirable to put, from time to time, brief notices in
all Big-8 newsgroups, difficulties in doing so do not justify telling
nobody at all outside this newsgroup.
Let each of the outgoing management and their friends post a few
notices, each individually composed, each cross-posted to three groups.
If that's a dozen people, doing one a day for a working week, that
amounts to 12*5*3 groups - 180 groups. Split the Big-8 alphabetically
into a dozen, one piece per participant, to avoid overlap. Granted
that's only of the order of 10% of the groups - but with only a little
care in the choosing they should mostly be the more active groups.
Remember now that most who use the Big-8 will see more than one group,
and you will realise that it's not difficult to communicate with a
significant proportion of the readership.
The Big-8 is important enough to be of interest in other hierarchies; on
a similar basis, put one notice in an administrative group of the major
national hierarchies (including news:us.*), with a suggestion that they
might like to propagate the information further within their hierarchy.
> and in addition don't want
>their normal Usenet activities in the groups they use disrupted by
>intrusions on the subject of hierarchy management.
A single, tactfully-written, brief notice is not a disruption,
especially if it can honestly and credibly allude to user-driven
management, and if it explains (or has a link which explains) the
benefits that good management has brought or will bring.
>People don't want to build their cars. They just want to drive them.
>They don't want to change the oil. They just want to drive them.
>Some won't even be bothered to pay someone to change the oil. They
>just want to drive them. Of course, its their fault when their cars
>(or newsgroups) break, but that still doesn't affect their apathy.
In sensible countries, they are legally required to take a degree of
interest in their cars, enough at least for mechanical safety. And
those that don't trouble to check fuel level soon find out their error.
James Farrar
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>JRS: In article <pc3an19j7c6ofph38...@4ax.com>, dated
>Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:32:46, seen in news:news.groups, edward ohare
><edward...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> posted :
>>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:31:06 +0000 (GMT),
>>paul$@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk (Paul Carpenter) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When the uk.* system wast started (and I remember it being started and
>>>at one time served my three years on the committee), general discussion in
>>>the then config group agreed that a body should be set up of a size to be
>>>representative but not unwieldy. We ended up with a size of 13 to always
>>>have the chance of most occassions being no deadlock.
>>
>>
>>Yea, I previously suggested 10-15 as a max size for the reasons you
>>mention. I can't believe anyone thinks having 24 members is a good
>>idea. It needs to be cut down.
>
>It also needs to be extended.
>
>Only two of those listed are manifestly associated with anywhere other
>than North America,
In what way? Simply by having .uk or .au in their email address?
BowTie
> "James Farrar" <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11 Nov 2005 23:39:45 +0100, "Vito Kuhn"
>> <vito...@family-usenet.com> wrote:
>> >> > I will not be making the votes public, to avoid fanning the flames
>> >> > of acrimony between future Board members who might not be mutual
>> >> > admirers.
>> > That is unfair. If votes in a CFV are made public, the same should
>> > happen with the results of THIS kind of a vote.
>> It's worth noting, perhaps, that votes in the uk.* Committee elections
>> are anonymous.
>> Publicising the votes in an electoral process like this is potentially
>> disastrous, as it could lead to two factions on the Board, each
>> drawing its support solely from its own members. Splitting the Board
>> down the middle from the off would not make the Board likely to come
>> to consensus on many things.
> I disagree that a secret vote is the better way to go. We're all grown
> men and women. Hurt feelings do not justify the need to throw
> transparency out the window. People have to work with people they don't
> like all the time in life, and it's up to each person to deal with it and
> not let that interfere with their responsibilities.
Vito, Vito, Vito
look in the mirror!
you are all that you point finger about :(x
Tom Perrett
>As a reminder, the following people, listed in a new random order,
>have agreed to volunteer their time to make decisions regarding the
>Big8 group list:
>"Tom Perrett" <to...@st.net.au>
Thanks, but I have decided to withdraw my name,
seems to me to be too many dysfunctionals infesting
news.* to enjoy working on a new system.
Seems to me though that there are some
good uns in the list though
Tom