On 16 Oct 2009 15:10:04 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to keyboard and typed:
>Quoting Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>: >>On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:51:31 GMT, The Happy Hippy put finger to >>>It will ensure that the rules for group creation are documented, followed >>>and applied. >>Yes. What that means is that it is the committee's responsibility to >>ensure that that CFV decisions are documented and published. It >>doesn't mean that the committee is entitled to make up the rules as >>they go along.
>Then why _have_ you made up a de facto wording to be inserted into all >charters?
On 16 Oct 2009 15:13:31 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to keyboard and typed:
>Quoting Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>: >[Of the attempt to prevent the RFD for urcm being posted to urc] >>The intention was to be helpful.
>In what _possible_ universe would hiding the RFD from all the interested >readers be helpful?
I think you're talking at cross purposes here. At no time did the committee suggest that the RFD should not be posted to urc. What we did suggest was that it was better for follow-ups to be directed solely to unnc, as previous experience has been that crossposted RFDs often end up generating non-crossposted threads in the non-unnc group, which can lead people to mistakenly believe that they are contributing to the offficial discussion when in fact they are not.
For the benefit of anyone else reading this who still has an open mind, this is what I actually wrote on the committee mailing list at the time (in response to the proponent stating that the guidelines give him the right to choose where the follow-ups go):
-------------begin quote------------------------------------------- You're right, the guidelines do allow you, as proponent, to choose which groups the discussion should be crossposted to (other than in circumstances where this isn't practical). However, in practice I'd advise against having the follow-ups set to anywhere other than unnc, as crossposting the substantive discussion can cause several problems.
Firstly, there will inevitably be people in the non-unnc group who will disregard the follow-ups and reply to the thread only in "their" newsgroup, and then wonder why their comments aren't being considered part of the discussion (which, under the guidelines, they cannot be), while others will reply only in unnc, thus excluding those in the other group who are mistakenly under the impression that they are seeing the whole of the discussion - which, also under the guidelines as they stand, you cannot prevent. You cannot insist that all contributions are crossposted, only that the initial RFD is crossposted and follow-ups set. If someone chooses to disregard the follow-ups and only reply to unnc, their contribution is part of the definitive discussion, but if someone disregards the follow-ups and only replies in urc, their contribution is not. This creates a strong risk that your opponents will subscribe to unnc and only reply there, leaving your supporters in urc who are reading the crossposted replies unaware of the points being made contrary to their opinions, or contributors being misdirected by people who deliberately alter the follow-ups so as to direct comments away from unnc.
Secondly, there will be contributors to urc who simply aren't interested in the proposal at all, and don't want the group cluttered up with threads discussing it. I'm well aware that urc is something of a flame-fest a the best of times anyway, so this may not necessarily be a major issue there, but it's still worth considering. It doesn't help your cause to irritate people unnecessarily.
For these reasons, I think it's usually better to set follow-ups to unnc alone, and encourage everyone who wants to participate in the discussion to subscribe to it. I think that's particularly true where the proposal is for a new group rather than a change to an existing group - even if the majority of contributors to the proposed urcm will come from the existing urc, it isn't directly about urc in the way that, for example, an RFD to re-charter it would be. -----end quote---------------------------------------------------
You may well want to interpret that as "obstructionism", but I think it's fairly clear from my text that this isn't what was intended.
>>In the light of the proponent's behaviour subsequently, I wish we had >>been obstructive. I've half a mind to RFD the group's removal, now.
On 09 Oct 2009 12:52:24 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to keyboard and typed:
>Quoting Geoff Berrow <blthe...@ckdog.co.uk>: >><ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >>>So when the Committeed claim that there would be a massive argument >>>about this supposed problem if I insisted on my preferred wording, it >>>seemed clear to me that they meant _they_ would argue and make trouble >>>(as indeed they were doing right there and then). >>Individual members may well have argued (as they are entitled to do >>so) as would a good many other people.
>As Ian points out, that is simply not true; his wording went quite >undisputed for weeks.
The first time the committee saw anything of the RFD was on 26 May. This was explicitly stated by the proponent to be the "current draft", rather than the finished article, and there was nothing wrong with it as a draft - it clearly needed some fleshing out and tidying up, but the proponent was planning to do that anyway so there wasn't any need for us to get involved at that stage in discussing the detailed wording.
We didn't see the proposed final copy until 12 June. The fact that it didn't include a clause banning binaries was first pointed out two days later, on 14 June. The proponent responded with his choice of wording two days after that, on 16 June, and my reply to that, stating that I would prefer to see the usual wording employed, was made the same day.
So to state that the proponent's wording "went quite undisputed for weeks" is simply false.
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >On 09 Oct 2009 12:52:24 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to >keyboard and typed:
>>Quoting Geoff Berrow <blthe...@ckdog.co.uk>: >>><ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >>>>So when the Committeed claim that there would be a massive argument >>>>about this supposed problem if I insisted on my preferred wording, it >>>>seemed clear to me that they meant _they_ would argue and make trouble >>>>(as indeed they were doing right there and then). >>>Individual members may well have argued (as they are entitled to do >>>so) as would a good many other people.
>>As Ian points out, that is simply not true; his wording went quite >>undisputed for weeks.
>The first time the committee saw anything of the RFD was on 26 May. >This was explicitly stated by the proponent to be the "current draft", >rather than the finished article, and there was nothing wrong with it >as a draft - it clearly needed some fleshing out and tidying up, but >the proponent was planning to do that anyway so there wasn't any need >for us to get involved at that stage in discussing the detailed >wording.
>We didn't see the proposed final copy until 12 June. The fact that it >didn't include a clause banning binaries was first pointed out two >days later, on 14 June. The proponent responded with his choice of >wording two days after that, on 16 June, and my reply to that, stating >that I would prefer to see the usual wording employed, was made the >same day.
>So to state that the proponent's wording "went quite undisputed for >weeks" is simply false.
>Mark
The problem which you and others are experiencing is commonly known as the "urc approach".
You are not part of the select little clique - therefore whatever you say is against the clique by definition and hence plain "wrong".
You will get no-where with sensible discussion - re-iterating what you have previously said in order to provide clarity.
You are wasting your time.
--
British Medical Association (BMA) View on helmets:
Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries, as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents
In article <1l8kd51mj2o0m5bofdhj8r47ha5e1vn...@news.markshouse.net>, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: quoting his own earlier email:
>You're right, the guidelines do allow you, as proponent, to choose >which groups the discussion should be crossposted to (other than in >circumstances where this isn't practical).
Since I disagreed with Mark's reasons, I responded by asking that followups should be set to include urc. Control had some difficulty accomodating my request as the software used by Control doesn't support crossposting. And, the 2nd RFD failed to have the followups set appropriately.
However this appears to be another case where current practice (and indeed advice from the Committee) disagrees with the the Guidelines.
(The CFV and the Results also lacked the crosspost but I hadn't appreciated how little communication there is between the Committee and Ukvoting. If I had, I would have specifically asked the votetaker to set followups too.)
>You may well want to interpret that as "obstructionism", but I think >it's fairly clear from my text that this isn't what was intended.
I agree that you didn't obstruct the crossposting. You advised against, in an entirely proper manner (even though I disagree entirely with your argument).
However there are still things which could have been improved here. Control initially refused to crosspost my RFD, until the Committee clarified matters. Furthermore, Control's first attempt to post the 2nd RFD vanished, and the repost was not crossposted.
Another thing that could do with some attention is the fact that Control edited my 1st RFD so that what was posted under my From: line was not identical to what I submitted. If Control is going to mechanically construct RFD postings and reassemble them via scripts, they should be posted under Control's name.
-- Ian Jackson personal email: <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/ PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
In message <17g*U5...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 11:04:41 on Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wibbled
>(The CFV and the Results also lacked the crosspost but I hadn't >appreciated how little communication there is between the Committee >and Ukvoting. If I had, I would have specifically asked the votetaker >to set followups too.)
I presume you are meaning crossposts in the Follow-Up: header as the CFV and result were crossposted to unna, unnc and urc?
I won't comment on the result posting but a CFV has a Reply-To: set to the @request.ukvoting.org.uk for the vote and Follow-Up: to Poster. This makes it straightforward for potential voters to request a ballot paper.
It is technically impossible to set a follow up to Poster and to newsgroups and would, even if possible, be undesirable.
-- Pedt uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>
In article <wbdJRT8ISF3KF...@fishcake.eternal-september.org>,
Pedt <h...@fairfieldtowers.net> wrote: >I presume you are meaning crossposts in the Follow-Up: header as the CFV >and result were crossposted to unna, unnc and urc?
Yes, I do mean the Followup-To.
>I won't comment on the result posting but a CFV has a Reply-To: set to >the @request.ukvoting.org.uk for the vote and Follow-Up: to Poster. This >makes it straightforward for potential voters to request a ballot paper.
Ah, I didn't spot that. I do seem to remember seeing some followups to the CFV, but I could be wrong.
>It is technically impossible to set a follow up to Poster and to >newsgroups and would, even if possible, be undesirable.
Yes.
-- Ian Jackson personal email: <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/ PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
>Another thing that could do with some attention is the fact that >Control edited my 1st RFD so that what was posted under my From: line >was not identical to what I submitted. If Control is going to >mechanically construct RFD postings and reassemble them via scripts, >they should be posted under Control's name.
A bit like you saying on your personal URCM web page:
British Medical Association (BMA) View on helmets:
Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries, as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents
> In article <wbdJRT8ISF3KF...@fishcake.eternal-september.org>, > Pedt <h...@fairfieldtowers.net> wrote: >>I presume you are meaning crossposts in the Follow-Up: header as >>the CFV and result were crossposted to unna, unnc and urc?
> Yes, I do mean the Followup-To.
>>I won't comment on the result posting but a CFV has a Reply-To: >>set to the @request.ukvoting.org.uk for the vote and Follow-Up: to >>Poster. This makes it straightforward for potential voters to >>request a ballot paper.
> Ah, I didn't spot that. I do seem to remember seeing some > followups to the CFV, but I could be wrong.
It is possible to send followups even where they are not invited, or even, perhaps, welcome.
|
