real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: >> In which case you shouldn't have gone for an RFD until you did.
>Why ever not?
Because you need a proposal.
>> An RFD leads to a vote and has to have a proposal.
>What are you talking about?
An RFD needing a proposal.
>There was an initial proposal, that covered several possibilities and of >necessity passed over certain details.
That's not a proposal. That's just a vague hand wavy idea. An RFD should be, as near as possible, in a form that can go to a vote.
You are mistaken by the name. It doesn't mean "let's have a vague discussion about x'" An RFD might not generate any discussion at all and go straight to a fast track. Granted, not in this case but in principle.
>Anyway, as far as I am concerned, it did what was required of it, and if >you don't mind very much I'm quite happy to let it lie now, as I am sure >everyone else is, in the sincere hope that it won't need to be revived >in the future.
I fear, from his recent post, that we haven't heard the last from Ian Jackson.
>Honestly, you and Ian Jackson are made for each other. You seem as >disappointed as he is resentful; you that it didn't all end in his >ignominious 'defeat', and he that he can no longer just do things the >way it pleases him.
So, you didn't have a proposal, and you didn't want to win a vote? And it is somehow a bad thing that I supported changing a system I felt was unfair? How does that work?
If you've been paying the slightest attention then you'll have noticed that in Message-ID: <8s1mo6hi13qn82o7f9v4fn929coqq6t...@4ax.com> I was supportive of your decision.
I wanted change, there was change, I'm not disappointed with that. Yes, I'm disappointed it didn't go as far as I'd hoped but according to your withdrawal notice so are you.
-- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:41:45 +0000, >> real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>> >> Sadly, that's the case. However an RFD does not necessarily mean >> >> major change. You might RFD a minor change, for instance, changing >> >> the way that moderators are appointed. Your mistake was in not having >> >> definite proposals.
>> >It's obviously not possible to have definite proposals until you know >> >what's possible (well, you can, but it's just silly).
>> In which case you shouldn't have gone for an RFD until you did.
> Why ever not?
>> An RFD leads to a vote and has to have a proposal.
> What are you talking about?
> There was an initial proposal, that covered several possibilities and of > necessity passed over certain details.
> Anyway, as far as I am concerned, it did what was required of it, and if > you don't mind very much I'm quite happy to let it lie now, as I am sure > everyone else is, in the sincere hope that it won't need to be revived > in the future.
> Honestly, you and Ian Jackson are made for each other. You seem as > disappointed as he is resentful; you that it didn't all end in his > ignominious 'defeat', and he that he can no longer just do things the > way it pleases him.
> I'll leave you both to it. Have fun!
> Daniele
Quote "Honestly, you and Ian Jackson are made for each other. You seem as
> disappointed as he is resentful; you that it didn't all end in his > ignominious 'defeat', and he that he can no longer just do things the > way it pleases him."
I think you will find that Mr Jackson has already made it quite clear that he will contiue in his own sweet way and indeed will do "things just the way it pleases him."
he has already posted on here
Quote "Based on the information we have now, particularly from the straw poll and from what moderates have said here, it seems to me that it's clear that (a) we're doing what the group's users want (insofar as such a diverse group could be said to have a common view) (b) if the gang of four were to force things to a vote they would lose.
So to my mind the bluster in Daniele's message is just a way for the gang of four to save face."
(just remind me how many peole voted in that straw poll Mr Jackson -- excluding members of the cabal!)
I cannot help but think this whole process has been anything but a huge waste of time and effort by quite a lot of concerned people. There has indeed been a lot of wind and bluster right from the start and it became very clear the no firm proposal was in hand to take any action at all.
The leader of the pack ( Mr Jackson) has just spit in your face! He can and will do exactly wha the pleases since it will take forever and a day to overthrow the cabal. Fortunately it will die all of its own accord it is inhababited by a small clique who do not represent in any real way cycling opinion. It is a prvate club on the Usenet system where its charter says quite clearly that the moderators can do anything they like
Quote from the Charter
"The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group" it further says
Quote "This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit."
You will forgive me if I include another quote
"A cabal is a number of people greater than two, together in some close design, usually to promote their private views and interests in a church, state, or other community, often by intrigue. Cabals are sometimes secret societies composed of a few designing persons, and at other times are manifestations of emergent behavior in society or governance on the part of a community of persons who have well established public affiliation or kinship. The term can also be used to refer to the designs of such persons or to the practical consequences of their emergent behavior, and also holds a general meaning of intrigue and conspiracy. Its usage carries strong connotations of shadowy corners, back rooms and insidious influence; a cabal is more evil and selective than, say, a faction, which is simply selfish; because of this negative connotation, few organizations use the term to refer to themselves or their internal subdivisions.
At 12:25:10 on Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Geoff Berrow <blthe...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote in <vr1po61449734tgddtgf64n74rc99s1...@4ax.com>:
>Sadly, that's the case. However an RFD does not necessarily mean >major change. You might RFD a minor change, for instance, changing >the way that moderators are appointed. Your mistake was in not having >definite proposals. It was all very vague.
That can easily be the trouble with this sort of RFD: people take it literally, as a Request for Discussion. "So, then, what do we all think about this, what are people's ideas?" When what it needs to be is "This is what I think about this, and this is what I think we ought to do about it - so what do people think about that?" -- Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me. Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton Diamond Ph.D.) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
In message <1jyovf0.13be9fhre9fjzN%real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk>, at 14:39:30 on Fri, 25 Mar 2011, D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk> wibbled
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:41:45 +0000, >> real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>> >> Sadly, that's the case. However an RFD does not necessarily mean >> >> major change. You might RFD a minor change, for instance, changing >> >> the way that moderators are appointed. Your mistake was in not having >> >> definite proposals.
>> >It's obviously not possible to have definite proposals until you know >> >what's possible (well, you can, but it's just silly).
>> In which case you shouldn't have gone for an RFD until you did.
>Why ever not?
I might disagree with Geoff here as RFD 1 could be vague and woolly and test out possible proposals but when you get to RFD 2 you are going to have to set out some actual proposals to be discussed. Even if you're going for Condercet you do have to provide actual proposals.
We've got up to RFD 5 in the past before the Proponent felt ready to take it to a vote so the number of RFDs needed is not a barrier but if you took something to a vote that was vague and woolly, chances are that it would be voted down.
>> An RFD leads to a vote and has to have a proposal.
>What are you talking about?
If you want to take an RFD to a vote then there has to be something to vote upon :)
>There was an initial proposal, that covered several possibilities and of >necessity passed over certain details.
Then you firm up the proposals in RFD 2 based on the discussions about RFD 1. You might then want RFD 3 or more based on those discussions.
>onestly, you and Ian Jackson are made for each other. You seem as >disappointed as he is resentful; you that it didn't all end in his >ignominious 'defeat', and he that he can no longer just do things the >way it pleases him.
I don't see Geoff as disappointed that you haven't gone for RFD 2. I don't see Ian as resentful either. Not understanding that others might disagree with his view of a moderated cycling group I'd accept as I would that he doesn't often listen - though when he has listened some good has come of it.
-- Pedt Helpful words 08: "Nooky" (noun). 17th Century word meaning chipped corners, usually in wood. Unless your carpenter is a lexicographer, it is probably unwise to ask for a bit of nooky on the table.
>> even they must now realise that >> all the talk of an RFD is not simply an empty threat.
> Thereby noting that uk.* is an inappropriate place > in which to attempt to establish a private fiefdom.
I don't think they ever wanted it to be so. They (we) just wanted a place to talk positively about cycling, there being more than enough places to submit oneself to endless browbeating on admitting to being a cyclist. Some of us want to celebrate something that we enjoy. Apparently this makes us evil.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 23:20:36 +0000 "Just zis Guy, you know?" <g...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't think they ever wanted it to be so. They (we) just wanted a > place to talk positively about cycling, there being more than enough > places to submit oneself to endless browbeating on admitting to being > a cyclist. Some of us want to celebrate something that we enjoy. > Apparently this makes us evil.
Only if you enclose a public space and then start making up rules about who's allowed in.
Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 23:20:36 +0000 > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <g...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:
>> I don't think they ever wanted it to be so. They (we) just wanted a >> place to talk positively about cycling, there being more than enough >> places to submit oneself to endless browbeating on admitting to being >> a cyclist. Some of us want to celebrate something that we enjoy. >> Apparently this makes us evil.
> Only if you enclose a public space and then start making up rules about > who's allowed in.
Seems you think that fine as long as it's your rules not someone else's. The difference being there has been a democratic vote on the current arrangements but not on yours.
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: > Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 23:20:36 +0000 > > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <g...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I don't think they ever wanted it to be so. They (we) just wanted a > >> place to talk positively about cycling, there being more than > >> enough places to submit oneself to endless browbeating on > >> admitting to being a cyclist. Some of us want to celebrate > >> something that we enjoy. Apparently this makes us evil.
> > Only if you enclose a public space and then start making up rules > > about who's allowed in.
> Seems you think that fine as long as it's your rules not someone > else's. The difference being there has been a democratic vote on the > current arrangements but not on yours.
The vote for group creation didn't say anything about excluding anyone based on who they were, it simply provided to exclude content that's not pleasant and interesting to cyclists[1]. The discussion leading to that vote generally agreed that behaviour outside the group should not be taken into account when moderating posts to the group. It's the current moderators who have taken it upon themselves to restrict access to the group beyond their mandate, attempting to justify this as an administrative convenience[2]. Our argument is that this is not how the group was intended to be, as determined by the RFD/CFV that led to its creation, that it should be run more equitably, and that if the current administration can't manage then maybe someone else can do it better, for the good of the group.
I find it odd that you seem to think that others would want to impose different undemocratic restrictions, rather than simply removing the ones that you seem to like, although I suppose that if you're of the "if you're not with us then you're against us" black&white school of thought then you may see no other way. Do you think that those of us who have a history of using the group as cycling enthusiasts have somehow been transformed into anti-cyclists who seek only to undermine it as a forum for that discussion?
[1] n.b. it doesn't say "of interest to moderators, who may block a thread if they're bored or uncomfortable with it despite the fact that regular contributors are still engaged in reasonable and civil discussion"
[2] and appeals that their volunteer status should exempt them from requirements for fairness, consistency, transparency or indeed sometimes communication of any sort at all.
Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On 26 Mar 2011 06:54:20 GMT > The vote for group creation didn't say anything about excluding anyone > based on who they were, it simply provided to exclude content that's not > pleasant and interesting to cyclists[1]. The discussion leading to that > vote generally agreed that behaviour outside the group should not be > taken into account when moderating posts to the group. It's the > current moderators who have taken it upon themselves to restrict access > to the group beyond their mandate, attempting to justify this as an > administrative convenience[2]. Our argument is that this is not how the > group was intended to be, as determined by the RFD/CFV that led to its > creation, that it should be run more equitably, and that if the > current administration can't manage then maybe someone else can do it > better, for the good of the group.
> I find it odd that you seem to think that others would want to impose > different undemocratic restrictions, rather than simply removing the > ones that you seem to like, although I suppose that if you're of the "if > you're not with us then you're against us" black&white school of > thought then you may see no other way. Do you think that those of us > who have a history of using the group as cycling enthusiasts have > somehow been transformed into anti-cyclists who seek only to undermine > it as a forum for that discussion?
> [1] n.b. it doesn't say "of interest to moderators, who may block a > thread if they're bored or uncomfortable with it despite the fact that > regular contributors are still engaged in reasonable and civil > discussion"
> [2] and appeals that their volunteer status should exempt them from > requirements for fairness, consistency, transparency or indeed sometimes > communication of any sort at all.
As I said, if you think it's being done wrong go for a vote and get a mandate to run it your way.
Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 23:20:36 +0000 > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <g...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:
>> I don't think they ever wanted it to be so. They (we) just wanted a >> place to talk positively about cycling, there being more than enough >> places to submit oneself to endless browbeating on admitting to being >> a cyclist. Some of us want to celebrate something that we enjoy. >> Apparently this makes us evil.
> Only if you enclose a public space and then start making up rules about > who's allowed in.
Chapman's off on his lies, again. He's never had the aim to discuss cycling positively. Like Whacko he heads straight to attacks on other road users again and again. What he supported was a forum where he can talk bollocks and no one can answer back.
And as pointed out by others he delights in getting a rise out of individuals knowing they can't reply.
Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > Chapman's off on his lies, again. He's never had the aim to discuss > cycling positively. Like Whacko he heads straight to attacks on other > road users again and again. What he supported was a forum where he > can talk bollocks and no one can answer back.
> And as pointed out by others he delights in getting a rise out of > individuals knowing they can't reply.
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: > As I said, if you think it's being done wrong go for a vote and get a > mandate to run it your way.
I heard you the first time. What bit of "However, despite some flaws, at the moment, the moderation of uk.rec.cycling.moderated is working tolerably well" did you not understand?
Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On 26 Mar 2011 15:49:52 GMT > Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>> As I said, if you think it's being done wrong go for a vote and get a >> mandate to run it your way.
> I heard you the first time. What bit of "However, despite some flaws, > at the moment, the moderation of uk.rec.cycling.moderated is working > tolerably well" did you not understand?
The demands as to how they should moderate to your stipulations that went with it?
We've been round this several times now and if you haven't got it yet I doubt you will.
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: > Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > On 26 Mar 2011 15:49:52 GMT > > Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> >> As I said, if you think it's being done wrong go for a vote and > >> get a mandate to run it your way.
> > I heard you the first time. What bit of "However, despite some > > flaws, at the moment, the moderation of uk.rec.cycling.moderated is > > working tolerably well" did you not understand?
> The demands as to how they should moderate to your stipulations that > went with it?
Where do you think this demand was? Concerns were voiced, and possible action mentioned - there was no "you must do this or we will do that" that I recall.
> We've been round this several times now and if you haven't got it yet > I doubt you will.
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: > Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > On 26 Mar 2011 15:49:52 GMT > > Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> >> As I said, if you think it's being done wrong go for a vote and get a > >> mandate to run it your way.
> > I heard you the first time. What bit of "However, despite some flaws, > > at the moment, the moderation of uk.rec.cycling.moderated is working > > tolerably well" did you not understand?
> The demands as to how they should moderate to your stipulations that went > with it?
I'm still really struggling to see how you construe something that in essence says "... and if in the future things develop in way that bothers us we'll make a proposal to change them, invite discussion and then put it to a vote" as undemocratic.
Daniele -- The Laugharne Weekend A three-day festival of literature, music and more, 15th-17th April 2011. <http://thelaugharneweekend.com/>
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>> Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >>> On 26 Mar 2011 15:49:52 GMT >>> Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> As I said, if you think it's being done wrong go for a vote and get a >>>> mandate to run it your way.
>>> I heard you the first time. What bit of "However, despite some flaws, >>> at the moment, the moderation of uk.rec.cycling.moderated is working >>> tolerably well" did you not understand?
>> The demands as to how they should moderate to your stipulations that went >> with it?
> I'm still really struggling to see how you construe something that in > essence says "... and if in the future things develop in way that > bothers us we'll make a proposal to change them, invite discussion and > then put it to a vote" as undemocratic.
Because you didn't stop there but added a list of stipulations on how the moderators should act to avoid the threat of an RFD and CFV. The fact you can't see that added to the manner of launching your first RFD gives me great concerns.
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: > > I'm still really struggling to see how you construe something that in > > essence says "... and if in the future things develop in way that > > bothers us we'll make a proposal to change them, invite discussion and > > then put it to a vote" as undemocratic.
> Because you didn't stop there but added a list of stipulations on how the > moderators should act to avoid the threat of an RFD and CFV.
We should have kept them secret?
Daniele -- The Laugharne Weekend A three-day festival of literature, music and more, 15th-17th April 2011. <http://thelaugharneweekend.com/>
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I'm still really struggling to see how you construe something that in >>> essence says "... and if in the future things develop in way that >>> bothers us we'll make a proposal to change them, invite discussion and >>> then put it to a vote" as undemocratic.
>> Because you didn't stop there but added a list of stipulations on how the >> moderators should act to avoid the threat of an RFD and CFV.
> We should have kept them secret?
Basically yes. Either you let the moderators get on with moderating according to the Charter i.e. as they see fit or you go for a mandate to do it differently yourselves. You have no mandate to dictate under threat how the moderators should moderate. If there is a democratic decision to change the moderation and/or moderators I will abide by the democratic decision but who are you as an unelected group to unilaterally impose moderation conditions for the rest of us?
Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: > Basically yes. Either you let the moderators get on with moderating > according to the Charter i.e. as they see fit
No, the "as they see fit" is how they choose to administer the group, not whether they feel like sticking to the charter or not.
> or you go for a mandate > to do it differently yourselves.
Differently as in how the group is supposed to be run, as determined by the charter?
> You have no mandate to dictate > under threat how the moderators should moderate.
But every right to point out where current moderation falls short of meeting the requirements laid out in the charter, which is what actually happened, and to remind readers of the governance rules of the uk.* hierarchy.
> If there is a > democratic decision to change the moderation and/or moderators I will > abide by the democratic decision but who are you as an unelected > group to unilaterally impose moderation conditions for the rest of us?
Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:10:32 +0100 > Tom Crispin <tom.nos...@britsc.com.nospam> wrote:
> > On 27 Mar 2011 17:08:26 GMT, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> > >Either you let the moderators get on with moderating > > >according to the Charter
> > Have the urcm moderators ever moderated according to the charter?
> You beat me to it.
I don't think that's really fair, especially after saying that moderation is tolerably good, and that while the moderators continue to moderate in a way that sufficiently resembles what we voted for, we're tolerably happy about it.
I think it's also fair to note that "the moderators" are not one.
Daniele -- The Laugharne Weekend A three-day festival of literature, music and more, 15th-17th April 2011. <http://thelaugharneweekend.com/>
On 27 Mar 2011 17:08:26 GMT, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>> We should have kept them secret?
>Basically yes. Either you let the moderators get on with moderating >according to the Charter i.e. as they see fit or you go for a mandate to do >it differently yourselves. You have no mandate to dictate under threat how >the moderators should moderate. If there is a democratic decision to >change the moderation and/or moderators I will abide by the democratic >decision but who are you as an unelected group to unilaterally impose >moderation conditions for the rest of us?
Well they have as much right as anyone. And while there is no other mechanism to change moderators and/or moderation policy, what else /could/ they do? -- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 21:32:11 +0100, Adam Funk <a240...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>On 2011-03-27, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2011 17:08:26 GMT, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Either you let the moderators get on with moderating >>>according to the Charter
>> Have the urcm moderators ever moderated according to the charter?
>Aren't the vast majority of posts approved without controversy?
Perhaps. But that does not mean that moderation is according to charter.
Do the moderators look at a post and ask, "Does this post comply with the charter?" No. It seems that they look at posts and ask if they like them, and if they don't they think up an excuse to reject them.
