Message from discussion uk.rec.cycling.moderated - RFD withdrawn
From: Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Subject: Re: uk.rec.cycling.moderated - RFD withdrawn
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:44:44 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: chiark.greenend.org.uk 1301053485 25927 188.8.131.52 (25 Mar 2011 11:44:45 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:44:45 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.21 (linux)
Originator: ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk ([184.108.40.206])
Trollsworth LeTrole <trollsworth.letr...@googlemail.com> writes:
> It's rather unfortunate that all the 'system' allows is a choice
> between "do nothing" and "nuclear weapons".
Well, that's only true if you regard the change process itself
(RFD+CFV) as `nuclear weapons'; an RFD+CFV could make a decidedly
non-nuclear change to the running of a group. (Fixing a spelling
mistake in the charter, perhaps?)
It's inevitable that following a formal procedure to make a change
against the wishes of those that currently moderate a group will
create ill will; that's just human nature. I don't think that should
stop anyone trying.
> Given the tools available though, I'm at a loss to understand the
> unfocussed anger from URCM loyalists about the whole affair. Is it:
> (a) The specific criticisms were groundless and unreasonable
This is about where I am, but I wouldn't say I'm angry. Bemused,
> (b) An RFD is an inappropriate way to force changes to moderation
> policy, how very dare you?
Well, it's the _only_ way to _force_ a change. It would be very
lovely if everyone just worked things out quietly by mutual agreement,
but that's not always possible. If you felt you were getting nowhere
by making suggestions to the URCM moderators or negotiating with them,
and still thought it important enough, an RFD was all you could do.