Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Test -- please let me see & reject
10 views
Skip to first unread message
paul
Dec 1, 2012, 11:51:38 AM12/1/12
to
Test -- please let me see & reject this one
Still having to e-mail to chaos direct
--
paul (C) � 2012 is mine
Still having to e-mail to chaos direct
--
paul (C) � 2012 is mine
paul
Dec 1, 2012, 12:00:22 PM12/1/12
to
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 16:51 GMT, paul <use...@watman.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>Test -- please let me see & reject this one
>Still having to e-mail to chaos direct
My apologies: 'tis really a case of hostage to fortune - four
>Test -- please let me see & reject this one
>Still having to e-mail to chaos direct
articles have gone to the ether yet that one sails through ...
Owain
Dec 1, 2012, 3:07:04 PM12/1/12
to
On Dec 1, 4:51�pm, paul <use...@watman.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Test -- please let me see & reject this one
> Still having to e-mail to chaos direct
I'd forgotten this group was moderated.
> Test -- please let me see & reject this one
> Still having to e-mail to chaos direct
I haven't seen any elections for ages ... They used to be such fun.
Owain
Jon Ribbens
Dec 1, 2012, 3:34:17 PM12/1/12
to
mandated by the group charter, it is almost impossible for anyone who
stands to not get elected, thus making the election almost entirely
pointless.
Greg Kretz
Dec 2, 2012, 4:05:53 PM12/2/12
to
Owain <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 4:51 pm, paul <use...@watman.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Still having to e-mail to chaos direct
What a wonderful sentence. :)
> On Dec 1, 4:51 pm, paul <use...@watman.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Still having to e-mail to chaos direct
> I'd forgotten this group was moderated.
> I haven't seen any elections for ages ... They used to be such fun.
Greg
--
On l'a dit en latin!
[No ficus = no spam]
Lyn David Thomas
Dec 4, 2012, 4:32:17 PM12/4/12
to
On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 21:05:53 GMT
gk...@ficusheian.org.uk (Greg Kretz) wrote:
> Owain <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 4:51 pm, paul <use...@watman.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Still having to e-mail to chaos direct
>
> What a wonderful sentence. :)
>
>
> > I'd forgotten this group was moderated.
> > I haven't seen any elections for ages ... They used to be such fun.
>
> Shhhh! Everyone's managed not to mention them for so long, now. :)
Oh dear, perhaps it is time to dust off the RFD to change the charter
gk...@ficusheian.org.uk (Greg Kretz) wrote:
> Owain <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 4:51 pm, paul <use...@watman.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Still having to e-mail to chaos direct
>
> What a wonderful sentence. :)
>
>
> > I'd forgotten this group was moderated.
> > I haven't seen any elections for ages ... They used to be such fun.
>
> Shhhh! Everyone's managed not to mention them for so long, now. :)
and the electoral system (as I was the one that saddled us with it...)
Suggested that we do yes no votes on any one nominated unless more than
six stand - in which case stv vote for top 4.... or would people just
prefer a yes no vote on anyone... with nominations being reopened if
less than two are elected.....
Owain
Dec 4, 2012, 5:17:42 PM12/4/12
to
On Dec 4, 9:32 pm, Lyn David Thomas wrote:
> Suggested that we do yes no votes on any one nominated unless more than
> six stand -
You may be entering the realms of fantasy there Lyn
> Suggested that we do yes no votes on any one nominated unless more than
> six stand -
Owain
Jon Ribbens
Dec 4, 2012, 9:12:32 PM12/4/12
to
On 2012-12-04, Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.org> wrote:
> Oh dear, perhaps it is time to dust off the RFD to change the charter
> and the electoral system (as I was the one that saddled us with it...)
> Suggested that we do yes no votes on any one nominated unless more than
> six stand - in which case stv vote for top 4.... or would people just
> prefer a yes no vote on anyone... with nominations being reopened if
> less than two are elected.....
This was tried before... It's probably best to either check that at
> Oh dear, perhaps it is time to dust off the RFD to change the charter
> and the electoral system (as I was the one that saddled us with it...)
> Suggested that we do yes no votes on any one nominated unless more than
> six stand - in which case stv vote for top 4.... or would people just
> prefer a yes no vote on anyone... with nominations being reopened if
> less than two are elected.....
least 12 people will vote in favour, or that nobody is going to object
to a fast-track, before trying to go ahead with it...
paul
Dec 5, 2012, 11:10:40 AM12/5/12
to
Though perhaps we should formally try to regularize the status quo in
some way.
Lyn David Thomas
Dec 6, 2012, 4:01:02 AM12/6/12
to
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:10:40 GMT
paul <use...@watman.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 02:12 GMT, Jon Ribbens
> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 2012-12-04, Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.org> wrote:
> >> Oh dear, perhaps it is time to dust off the RFD to change the
> >> charter and the electoral system (as I was the one that saddled us
> >> with it...) Suggested that we do yes no votes on any one nominated
> >> unless more than six stand - in which case stv vote for top 4....
> >> or would people just prefer a yes no vote on anyone... with
> >> nominations being reopened if less than two are elected.....
> >
> >This was tried before... It's probably best to either check that at
> >least 12 people will vote in favour, or that nobody is going to
> >object to a fast-track, before trying to go ahead with it...
I know - would anyone object? What are the chances of fast tracking?
paul <use...@watman.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 02:12 GMT, Jon Ribbens
> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 2012-12-04, Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.org> wrote:
> >> Oh dear, perhaps it is time to dust off the RFD to change the
> >> charter and the electoral system (as I was the one that saddled us
> >> with it...) Suggested that we do yes no votes on any one nominated
> >> unless more than six stand - in which case stv vote for top 4....
> >> or would people just prefer a yes no vote on anyone... with
> >> nominations being reopened if less than two are elected.....
> >
> >This was tried before... It's probably best to either check that at
> >least 12 people will vote in favour, or that nobody is going to
> >object to a fast-track, before trying to go ahead with it...
> "And just in time for the Christmas holidays" <veg>
> Though perhaps we should formally try to regularize the status quo in
> some way.
paul
Dec 6, 2012, 1:30:17 PM12/6/12
to
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 09:01 Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:10 paul <use...@watman.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> "And just in time for the Christmas holidays" <veg>
>
>:-) a project for the holidays...
Moderation and mince pies :)
>> Though perhaps we should formally try to regularize the status quo in
>> some way.
>
>Indeed, not that I want to be moderator for life.
Oh gracious, quite; but given the change in volume on the group, and
usenet itself, and the sheer bulk of the task coming down to silently
rejecting anonymous spam and multi-part binary articles in the queue,
I wonder now whether people feel if we need elections at all.
Everything's pretty transparent and open.
Perhaps instead a simple thread, here, calling for volunteers as and
when needed, and then something along the lines of existing moderators
reaching a consensus, posting a notice of intent here requesting if
any objections, and then asking Neil if he could do the necessary.
I'm tending to the keep it simple ethos because there're fewer things
to break and the current circumstances seem to militate against any
kerfuffle for what is now essentially a repetitive and solely and
purely administrative task.
>On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:10 paul <use...@watman.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 02:12 Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On 2012-12-04, Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.org> wrote:
>> >> Oh dear, perhaps it is time to dust off the RFD to change the
>> >> charter and the electoral system (as I was the one that saddled us
>> >> with it...) Suggested that we do yes no votes on any one nominated
>> >> unless more than six stand - in which case stv vote for top 4....
>> >> or would people just prefer a yes no vote on anyone... with
>> >> nominations being reopened if less than two are elected.....
>> >
>> >This was tried before... It's probably best to either check that at
>> >least 12 people will vote in favour, or that nobody is going to
>> >object to a fast-track, before trying to go ahead with it...
>
>I know - would anyone object? What are the chances of fast tracking?
Probably best settled by raising an RFD and verifying consensus.
>> >On 2012-12-04, Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.org> wrote:
>> >> Oh dear, perhaps it is time to dust off the RFD to change the
>> >> charter and the electoral system (as I was the one that saddled us
>> >> with it...) Suggested that we do yes no votes on any one nominated
>> >> unless more than six stand - in which case stv vote for top 4....
>> >> or would people just prefer a yes no vote on anyone... with
>> >> nominations being reopened if less than two are elected.....
>> >
>> >This was tried before... It's probably best to either check that at
>> >least 12 people will vote in favour, or that nobody is going to
>> >object to a fast-track, before trying to go ahead with it...
>
>I know - would anyone object? What are the chances of fast tracking?
>> "And just in time for the Christmas holidays" <veg>
>
>:-) a project for the holidays...
>> Though perhaps we should formally try to regularize the status quo in
>> some way.
>
>Indeed, not that I want to be moderator for life.
usenet itself, and the sheer bulk of the task coming down to silently
rejecting anonymous spam and multi-part binary articles in the queue,
I wonder now whether people feel if we need elections at all.
Everything's pretty transparent and open.
Perhaps instead a simple thread, here, calling for volunteers as and
when needed, and then something along the lines of existing moderators
reaching a consensus, posting a notice of intent here requesting if
any objections, and then asking Neil if he could do the necessary.
I'm tending to the keep it simple ethos because there're fewer things
to break and the current circumstances seem to militate against any
kerfuffle for what is now essentially a repetitive and solely and
purely administrative task.
Owain
Dec 6, 2012, 4:18:39 PM12/6/12
to
On Dec 6, 9:01 am, Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.org> wrote:
>> Although perhaps we should formally try to regularize the status quo in
> > some way.
Oh, I'll vote for that.
> Indeed, not that I want to be moderator for life.
Moderator Emeritus has a certain ring to it...
Owain
>> Although perhaps we should formally try to regularize the status quo in
> > some way.
Oh, I'll vote for that.
> Indeed, not that I want to be moderator for life.
Owain
Lyn David Thomas
Dec 6, 2012, 5:23:25 PM12/6/12
to
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:30:17 GMT
paul <use...@watman.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm tending to the keep it simple ethos because there're fewer things
> to break and the current circumstances seem to militate against any
> kerfuffle for what is now essentially a repetitive and solely and
> purely administrative task.
Actually my very very first pre-rfd had the moderators
paul <use...@watman.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm tending to the keep it simple ethos because there're fewer things
> to break and the current circumstances seem to militate against any
> kerfuffle for what is now essentially a repetitive and solely and
> purely administrative task.
selecting new moderators unless there were objections..... if I
remember that was subject to some slaughter online....
Lyn David Thomas
Dec 6, 2012, 5:23:27 PM12/6/12
to
Owain
Dec 7, 2012, 6:19:06 PM12/7/12
to
On Dec 6, 10:23 pm, Lyn David Thomas wrote:
> > Moderator Emeritus has a certain ring to it...
> LOL do I get a nice gown and a funny hat to go with it...
I daresay Mr Baines will lend you one of his if you ask nicely.
> > Moderator Emeritus has a certain ring to it...
> LOL do I get a nice gown and a funny hat to go with it...
Owain
Greg Kretz
Dec 9, 2012, 7:08:15 PM12/9/12
to
Owain <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 9:01 am, Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.org> wrote:
> >> Although perhaps we should formally try to regularize the status quo in
> > > some way.
>
> Oh, I'll vote for that.
/Me grumbles.
> On Dec 6, 9:01 am, Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.org> wrote:
> >> Although perhaps we should formally try to regularize the status quo in
> > > some way.
>
> Oh, I'll vote for that.
> > Indeed, not that I want to be moderator for life.
persuaded, as long as it was for the good of the froup? :)
> Moderator Emeritus has a certain ring to it...
0 new messages