Received: by 10.180.87.100 with SMTP id w4mr1305495wiz.3.1350136004704;
        Sat, 13 Oct 2012 06:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config
Subject: Re: RFD for Moderated Group Charter Changes
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:46:25 +0100
Organization: The Good Stuff Company of the UK
Message-ID: <rkri7855jh21st2i7nmgh2pdi6agvo89v9@news.markshouse.net>
References: <a1qi789agdr8p60jof2cpar91j5c8ik6kj@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 30
X-Authenticated-User: mark
Path: q10ni65108349wif.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!feeder.erje.net!zen.net.uk!dedekind.zen.co.uk!news.good-stuff.co.uk!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:20:33 +0100, nomen_nes...@outlook.com put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>If a successful vote is taken on a proposed charter change and the moderators
>either decide to ignore the requested change, or implement the change but then
>refuse to work to the new charter: what happens next?
>It has been stated that there is no mechanism for a vote of no confidence in
>the moderators of a moderated group; a call for re-elections, or any other
>action, including "removing" the group (however that is done).  If this is the
>case, what is the point of any proposed charter changes going to a vote.  It
>all sounds like a waste of time, even if a majority of voters support the
>proposed charter changes.
>(And yes - this is about URCM)

It is possible to RFD the removal of the group. It is also possible to RFD
the replacement of the moderators.

The reason there's no mechanism for a simple motion of no confidence in the
moderators is that such an RFD is equally pointless: You can't force the
moderators to resign, the only way to force them to cease being moderators
is to change the moderation email address. And you can't do that unless you
have a new address to replace it. So you have to have an alternative
moderation system, with at least one alternative moderator, ready to take
over if the motion for replacement wins. Otherwise, there's no point having
the vote.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk