2nd RFD: RECHARTER: uk.people.gothic
Dave H
2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
amend the charter for uk.people.gothic
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE: uk.people.gothic
The subject of the uk.people.gothic charter is somewhat contentious.
The UK Usenet Committee's position, found on their web site at
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.people.gothic.html>, is simply: "No
Charter available for this newsgroup (although an unofficial charter,
never formally adopted, is published regularly as a FAQ on the
group)."
The uk.people.gothic FAQ, which has been regularly posted to the
newsgroup since 1996, can presently be found at
<http://www.countb.co.uk/upgfaq>. It states:
"The uk.people.gothic newsgroup will be open to discussion of
all aspects of gothic lifestyle, including the aspects of art
and science that are relevant to gothic culture. It is hoped
that the newsgroup will become a central place for discussions
about the medium within the UK.
uk.people.gothic is not moderated. It came into existence on
Monday the 5th of June 1995. Binary posts are not permitted.
Text posts giving URLs of binary material or pointers to binary
material on alt.binaries.gothic are welcomed.
Brief infrequent commercial posts advertising products and
services relevant to the UK goth community are permitted. Long,
frequent or irrelevant commercial posts are not welcomed.
The UPG charter is not listed at the UK Usenet Committee website
http://www.usenet.org.uk/ for the simple reason that we came
into existence before they did, ergo the formation of this
newsgroup does not adhere to their rules. Our charter has been
formally voted on twice -- once on formation and once on the
adoption of this FAQ..."
It is hoped that the re-chartering of uk.people.gothic will help resolve
the issue. If unsuccessful, the status quo will simply continue.
END RATIONALE
CHARTER: uk.people.gothic
AMENDED CHARTER
uk.people.gothic is open to the discussion of all aspects of gothic
lifestyle within the UK, including the aspects of art and science that
are relevant to gothic culture.
Advertising
Commercial advertising from suppliers of goods and services relevant
to the UK goth community is permitted. Such adverts should not be
posted more than once every three months. The subject line should
begin "ADVERT: ", except for vacancy adverts, when it should begin
"JOB: ". Long, frequent or irrelevant commercial posts are off-topic.
If you run a related business you may advertise it in your signature,
providing it does not exceed four lines total and that you have
something relevant to post to the group.
Crossposting
Messages may be cross-posted to other groups where relevant (e.g.
alt.gothic, uk.music.alternative). Messages posted to
uk.people.gothic must not be cross-posted to more than a TOTAL of four
newsgroups.
Cross-posted adverts, where allowed, must meet the requirements of the
charters of *all* groups involved.
Binaries & Formatting
Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a
pointer may be posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be
used where appropriate.
Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly
formatted messages are prohibited. To see how to make your newsreader
comply with this, read <http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>.
Personals
Personals are off-topic. The correct place for personals is
uk.adverts.personals.
Warning
Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to their
"postmaster" and/or Service Provider.
END AMENDED CHARTER
END CHARTER
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until February 19th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce.
Please refer to this document if you have any questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.people.gothic
Proponent:
Dave H <d...@dmh.org.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBPGO+6mOfGXkh8vHZAQGI1wP7B6IQsDQJlmqX2b/b5zbLbWIhxReSMoS4
5L+roUfwG+10FzbVnYLWV/MfFxhR4LCGPN++aKENK1bgWjY7Q/W4mssRH8YiwiKe
XkwkslB1gLvTKxvMoSLz8xIphmQ1M7+a5JD8H7SXWbd0GMKT9Q5ebzBeAGTh6ZO6
puj5dB6E0Ts=
=8Ber
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Peter Smyth
"Dave H" <lor...@darkwave.org.SPAMTRAP.uk> wrote in message
news:rfd2-uk.people.gothic-20020208120448$70...@harlech.demon.co.uk...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> amend the charter for uk.people.gothic
Is this a 2nd RFD? I don't remember seeing any previous RFD on this topic?
Peter Smyth
Dave H
>
> Is this a 2nd RFD? I don't remember seeing any previous RFD on this topic?
I believe the subject line's an admin error; this is the first RFD.
Dave
--
Dave H "So many times...
lorian/at/darkwave.org.uk Tried not to wonder"
Dave H
> Advertising
>
> Commercial advertising from suppliers of goods and services relevant
> to the UK goth community is permitted. Such adverts should not be
> posted more than once every three months. The subject line should
> begin "ADVERT: ", except for vacancy adverts, when it should begin
> "JOB: ". Long, frequent or irrelevant commercial posts are off-topic.
For the record, I'm thinking of toning the above down slightly; to "once
every month" rather than "once every three months". This would make it
easier, for example, for a CD mail order company to post it's monthly
updates.
Any thoughts? Too harsh, too lenient, etc.?
Thanks,
Dave
NP: Converter: Coma
Thomas Lee
<lor...@darkwave.org.SPAMTRAP.uk> writes
>For the record, I'm thinking of toning the above down slightly; to
>"once every month" rather than "once every three months". This would
>make it easier, for example, for a CD mail order company to post it's
>monthly updates.
>
>Any thoughts? Too harsh, too lenient, etc.?
To some degree it depends on how good the advertisers are at obeying any
charter. The posters to up.comp.training are not overly clueful on all
occasions - you may find any change to the charter does nothing to
change the behaviour of some posters. :-(
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Jack Howard
Once upon a time, Dave H <lor...@darkwave.org.SPAMTRAP.uk> wrote:
>formatted messages are prohibited. To see how to make your newsreader
>comply with this, read <http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>.
Change to "To see how to make some common newsreaders comply with this".
>Warning
>
>Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to their
>"postmaster" and/or Service Provider.
Replace "postmaster" with Service Provider (and loose the "). But
that's just my personal view - I've always thought the version with the
" looks like we're threatening people with "the big scary monster", and
many users nowadays won't have a clue what the GPO has to do with
Usenet.
Must admit, I preferred the simplicity of the original, but if the rest
of upg are happy with this (and I've seen no serious opposition so far),
I'll support it.
--
- Jack Howard aka Pyromancer.
http://www.railway.stormshadow.co.uk
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk
Jack Howard
>
>> Advertising
>>
>> Commercial advertising from suppliers of goods and services relevant
>> to the UK goth community is permitted. Such adverts should not be
>> posted more than once every three months. The subject line should
>> begin "ADVERT: ", except for vacancy adverts, when it should begin
>> "JOB: ". Long, frequent or irrelevant commercial posts are off-topic.
>
>For the record, I'm thinking of toning the above down slightly; to "once
>every month" rather than "once every three months". This would make it
>easier, for example, for a CD mail order company to post it's monthly
>updates.
>
>Any thoughts? Too harsh, too lenient, etc.?
I'd prefer monthly myself. Some people appear to have a paranoid fear
of any form of advertising, which I think skews things too far in the
"standard" templates. The only reason to be fanatically restrictive is
to deter spammers, but since when have spammers paid the slightest bit
of attention to group charters? The current charter of upg doesn't have
a specific limit, yet the group isn't exactly swamped with O/T
advertising.
Making things too specific can just play into the hands of the
fundamentalist pedants, which is IMO a seriously bad idea...
--
- Jack Howard.
http://www.railway.stormshadow.co.uk
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk
Michael Johnson
>Must admit, I preferred the simplicity of the original, but if the rest
>of upg are happy with this (and I've seen no serious opposition so far),
>I'll support it.
I'm just a bit baffled as to why this whole issue has come up at all.
IMO it's a prime case of 'it ain't broke, so don't fix it'.
--
Uncle Nemesis > Michael Johnson > un...@globalnet.c.uk
Nemesis Promotions > Now with added preservatives >
http://www.nemesis.to
Graham Clark
> Jack Howard <ja...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Must admit, I preferred the simplicity of the original, but if the rest
> >of upg are happy with this (and I've seen no serious opposition so far),
> >I'll support it.
>
> I'm just a bit baffled as to why this whole issue has come up at all.
>
> IMO it's a prime case of 'it ain't broke, so don't fix it'.
It doesn't look broken to me, but I've been told several times that this
committee bunch think it's broken. It sounds more than a little petty, but
it's probably worthwhile getting it fixed up.
G.
--
"As we all know, the English like nothing better than being pegged out on
a croquet lawn by a dirty foreign girl in a riot skirt and bondage boots."
Next Calling : 19th February
12345678902234567890323456789042345678905234567890623456789072345678908234567890
Chris Croughton
<ja...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Couple of suggestions (but feel free to ignore):
>
>Once upon a time, Dave H <lor...@darkwave.org.SPAMTRAP.uk> wrote:
>
>>formatted messages are prohibited. To see how to make your newsreader
>>comply with this, read <http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>.
>
>Change to "To see how to make some common newsreaders comply with this".
Agreed, there ae many it doesn't mention. Of course, many of those
don't post stranglely formatted messages anyway...
>>Warning
>>
>>Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to their
>>"postmaster" and/or Service Provider.
>
>Replace "postmaster" with Service Provider (and loose the "). But
>that's just my personal view - I've always thought the version with the
>" looks like we're threatening people with "the big scary monster", and
>many users nowadays won't have a clue what the GPO has to do with
>Usenet.
Exactly. Most users will know what their Service Provider is, but few
of them (by proportion) will know what a 'Postmaster' is supposed to be
and why they should worry if they are reported to one.
>Must admit, I preferred the simplicity of the original, but if the rest
>of upg are happy with this (and I've seen no serious opposition so far),
>I'll support it.
I'm not bothered either way, if I vote at all it will be an 'abstain',
but if it's what the users want I see nothing else wrong with it.
Chris C
Dave H
<snip/>
>>Warning
>>
>>Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to their
>>"postmaster" and/or Service Provider.
>
> Replace "postmaster" with Service Provider (and loose the "). But
> that's just my personal view - I've always thought the version with the
> " looks like we're threatening people with "the big scary monster", and
> many users nowadays won't have a clue what the GPO has to do with
> Usenet.
Thanks, I'll definately take that comment on board. GPO aside, people
have commented time and time again that a postmaster administers email
rather than net news; just mentioning Service Provider seems more
succinct.
Ta,
Dave
Chris Darkfire
scribbled with virtual crayon:
> It doesn't look broken to me, but I've been told several times that this
>committee bunch think it's broken. It sounds more than a little petty, but
>it's probably worthwhile getting it fixed up.
as that is proper music your mum will like. Music by comitee will get
you lowest common denominator rubbish - dare to be different!
If this NG has been around longer and worked then why change it - I'm
in complete agreement with Uncle N here,
See ya
CHRIS
Dave H
<snip/>
> It doesn't look broken to me, but I've been told several times that this
> committee bunch think it's broken. It sounds more than a little petty, but
> it's probably worthwhile getting it fixed up.
Ah, it may perhaps seem like a pointless pedantic process with no
possible practical point behind it. But come the Great Cyberwar you'll
be glad of UPG's impenetrable padded protection.
Actually, how does the following sound to you?
"uk.people.gothic is open to the discussion of all aspects of gothic
lifestyle within the UK, including the aspects of art and science that
are relevant to gothic culture. This also includes the advocacy and
trading of digital music files (MP3, Ogg Vorbis, etc.) which the group
believes to be of great benefit to both the music industry and the
gothic consumer."
Dave H
> But by that logic you should start listening to Westlife or something
> as that is proper music your mum will like. Music by comitee will get
> you lowest common denominator rubbish - dare to be different!
Er, I don't think that's a very good comparison! :o) The charter in
the RFD isn't intended to radically change the direction of
uk.people.gothic or anything drastic like that. And no, it wasn't put
together by a committee either. ;o)
> If this NG has been around longer and worked then why change it - I'm
> in complete agreement with Uncle N here,
The issue I'm trying to address is the difference between the charter as
it appears on UPG, and the charter as it (doesn't) appear on
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/>. So the objective is one of harmonisation,
not redefinition per se.
N.B. All of uk.* falls under the aegis of the UK Usenet Committee when
it comes to adding/deleting newsgroups, etc. -- this includes groups
older than UPG.
Cheers,
Flash Wilson
<lor...@darkwave.org.SPAMTRAP.uk> wrote:
>
>Ah, it may perhaps seem like a pointless pedantic process with no
>possible practical point behind it. But come the Great Cyberwar you'll
>be glad of UPG's impenetrable padded protection.
:)
>Actually, how does the following sound to you?
>
>"uk.people.gothic is open to the discussion of all aspects of gothic
>lifestyle within the UK, including the aspects of art and science that
>are relevant to gothic culture. This also includes the advocacy and
>trading of digital music files (MP3, Ogg Vorbis, etc.) which the group
>believes to be of great benefit to both the music industry and the
>gothic consumer."
I'd be a bit concerned that it leaves [insert news carrier of
choice here] open to say "they encourage MP3 swapping? Gosh, that
must be illegal, let's not carry that group".
I'm not disagreeing with you, but IMO you don't want to offer
the rope to any paranoid people out there. I know the music is
important, but why not omit the last line?
My thoughts anyway, feel free to disagree :)
Cheers,
--
Flash Wilson http://www.gorge.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If anyone has a video of the JK Rowling interview shown on BBC1
on December 28th 2001 will they PLEASE let me borrow it!!!
Graham Clark
> Graham Clark <g...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
> > It doesn't look broken to me, but I've been told several times that this
> > committee bunch think it's broken. It sounds more than a little petty, but
> > it's probably worthwhile getting it fixed up.
>
> Ah, it may perhaps seem like a pointless pedantic process with no
> possible practical point behind it.
I think it's probably a minor point, but I'm in favour of getting it
cleared up.
> Actually, how does the following sound to you?
>
> "uk.people.gothic is open to the discussion of all aspects of gothic
> lifestyle within the UK, including the aspects of art and science that
> are relevant to gothic culture. This also includes the advocacy and
> trading of digital music files (MP3, Ogg Vorbis, etc.) which the group
> believes to be of great benefit to both the music industry and the
> gothic consumer."
*Cough*
Fine by me, but I can see it being a little controversial. For the sake of
consensus . . . maybe gnot.
Graham Clark
> On 11 Feb 2002 10:36:45 +0000, Graham Clark <g...@sanger.ac.uk>
> scribbled with virtual crayon:
> > It doesn't look broken to me, but I've been told several times that this
> >committee bunch think it's broken. It sounds more than a little petty, but
> >it's probably worthwhile getting it fixed up.
> But by that logic you should start listening to Westlife or something
> as that is proper music your mum will like. Music by comitee will get
> you lowest common denominator rubbish - dare to be different!
Eh? AFAICT we can go through what are now the proper channels, adopt
something as close as we like to our old charter, and it's done. The
only difference will be that the uk.* people have the consistency they
want and we'll get the charter listed somewhere where people might want
to go looking for it. I don't really see what there is to object to here,
except maybe going to the effort.
Richard Kennaway
g...@sanger.ac.uk writes:
> It doesn't look broken to me, but I've been told several times that this
>committee bunch think it's broken. It sounds more than a little petty, but
>it's probably worthwhile getting it fixed up.
Have you been told this by the committee themselves? Given the goings-on
in uk.net.news.* in the last few months, it would be unwise to trust any
second-hand report of what the committee allegedly think.
-- Richard Kennaway
Graham Clark
> >are relevant to gothic culture. This also includes the advocacy and
> >trading of digital music files (MP3, Ogg Vorbis, etc.) which the group
> >believes to be of great benefit to both the music industry and the
> >gothic consumer."
>
> I'd be a bit concerned that it leaves [insert news carrier of
> choice here] open to say "they encourage MP3 swapping? Gosh, that
> must be illegal, let's not carry that group".
This is actually just because we had a big argument over mp3-sharing
on the group. You're quite right to say it wouldn't be a good idea,
and thankfully it's not (unless I've just lost the plot entirely) a
serious suggestion.
Chris Darkfire
(Dave H) scribbled with a virtual crayon
>Chris Darkfire <Chris_Dar...@darkfire.co.uk> wrote:
>> But by that logic you should start listening to Westlife or something
>> as that is proper music your mum will like. Music by comitee will get
>> you lowest common denominator rubbish - dare to be different!
>
>Er, I don't think that's a very good comparison! :o)
involves RFDs & CFVs as well :)
>The issue I'm trying to address is the difference between the charter as
>it appears on UPG, and the charter as it (doesn't) appear on
><http://www.usenet.org.uk/>. So the objective is one of harmonisation,
>not redefinition per se.
Ok fair enough - but why? Why for the group and why for yourself? Not
having a dig just interested.
>N.B. All of uk.* falls under the aegis of the UK Usenet Committee when
>it comes to adding/deleting newsgroups, etc. -- this includes groups
>older than UPG.
What a bit like a closed shop?
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
> The issue I'm trying to address is the difference between the charter as
> it appears on UPG, and the charter as it (doesn't) appear on
> <http://www.usenet.org.uk/>. So the objective is one of harmonisation,
> not redefinition per se.
I'm certainly happy to vote to get a sensible charter for upg
added to the "official" site.
#Paul
Mark Goodge
Chris Darkfire wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:08:27 -0000, lor...@darkwave.org.SPAMTRAP.uk
> (Dave H) scribbled with a virtual crayon
>
> >The issue I'm trying to address is the difference between the charter as
> >it appears on UPG, and the charter as it (doesn't) appear on
> ><http://www.usenet.org.uk/>. So the objective is one of harmonisation,
> >not redefinition per se.
>
> Ok fair enough - but why? Why for the group and why for yourself? Not
> having a dig just interested.
Speaking as an outsider, there's no reason why you *need* to have an
official charter that appears on the UK Usenet website. There are
several other legacy groups (those that predate the current system) that
either don't have charters, or, like upg, have an unofficial charter.
But having an officially recognised charter can be helpful in resolving
disputes - those ISP abuse departments that take Usenet abuse seriously
(which, it has to be admitted, is probably a minority) will usually act
on breaches of an official charter but not on breaches of an unofficial
one.
Also, there's the simple fact that http://www.usenet.org.uk is the
obvious first port of call for someone wanting to find out about groups
in uk.*, so it makes sense to keep your entry there up to date, so to
speak.
> >N.B. All of uk.* falls under the aegis of the UK Usenet Committee when
> >it comes to adding/deleting newsgroups, etc. -- this includes groups
> >older than UPG.
>
> What a bit like a closed shop?
Not really, more like a governing body or council. Prior to the creation
of the committee, getting groups created in uk.* was a bit of a
hit-and-miss affair - basically, people had to persuade their ISP to
create and carry new groups, and there wasn't any consensus about what
constituted a valid group and what didn't. So a group of people decided
to create a unified system that all the ISPs would agree to, and that
would allow anyone to get a new group created simply by holding a vote
(instead of having to persuade numerous ISPs to carry it). Effectively,
the new system was set up to take control away from the ISPs and give it
to the users, in the form of a democratically elected committee. The
committee pioneers managed to persuade the ISPs at the time to agree to
this, subject to a few safeguards, and the proposal was also voted on by
users of uk.*, so it had the backing of all parties. The way in which
the committee operates has changed a bit since then, in response to
changes in Usenet as a whole, but the basic principle remains the same.
The question of what authority the committee has over legacy groups is
one that crops up from time to time, mostly from those who oppose the
current system. Personally, I think this is a bit of a pointless debate
- the committee has de facto control over the legacy groups, whether
they like it or not, as the committee controls the technical system by
which uk.* groups are created or removed. But it's also the case that
the organisations who previously had authority over uk.* - the ISPs -
explicitly agreed to cede that authority to the committee, so the
committee has de jure control as well.
Mark
James Coupe
<g...@sanger.ac.uk> writes:
> It doesn't look broken to me, but I've been told several times that this
>committee bunch think it's broken. It sounds more than a little petty, but
>it's probably worthwhile getting it fixed up.
Statements from the Committee are most usually posted to
uk.net.news.announce or as a response to an e-mail to them.
I would suggest e-mailing:
con...@usenet.org.uk
commi...@usenet.org.uk
if you wish to validate such claims. If it *sounds* strange, it may
well not be true.
I would note that the Committee generally don't have a history of going
round and policing group charters and making people fix them, however.
At least, I can't think of examples of such. (Though a number of
members have played 'Dr Death' for moribund groups, which is a different
issue entirely since no-one is even beginning to suggest that, of
course.)
--
James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c.
PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti
allen
in them or uk voting.
--
Allen
·´¯`·.¸¸.·><((((º>
><((((º>.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><((((º>
Graham Clark
> if you wish to validate such claims. If it *sounds* strange, it may
> well not be true.
Well, someone else just repeated it, so if it's not it'll be denied
pretty quickly. All it was was the bit about the charter not being listed
with the rest because, being a legacy group, we didn't go through the
current procedures. This seems a little odd, but if it's the case then we
can presumably just jump through the hoops now and have done with it.
It doesn't sound like much bother. In my view we might as well.
Thomas Lee
<fl...@gorge.org> writes
>>"uk.people.gothic is open to the discussion of all aspects of gothic
>>lifestyle within the UK, including the aspects of art and science that
>>are relevant to gothic culture. This also includes the advocacy and
>>trading of digital music files (MP3, Ogg Vorbis, etc.) which the group
>>believes to be of great benefit to both the music industry and the
>>gothic consumer."
>
>I'd be a bit concerned that it leaves [insert news carrier of
>choice here] open to say "they encourage MP3 swapping? Gosh, that
>must be illegal, let's not carry that group".
Speaking purely for myself, the MP3 clause may be unnecessary. It
certainly raises questions that may be better off not raised. And if an
MP3 clause really is needed, then something along the lines of 'where
legally permitted' or such like might be a good idea.
I offer up my huge library of Grateful Dead MP3s and SHNs on one of my
web sites. But I do so with strict compliance and permission of the
Dead's management. I am aware that some bands take a much less friendly
view - so keeping legal is vital, IMHO. The charter should ensure this
is clear.
>I'm not disagreeing with you, but IMO you don't want to offer
>the rope to any paranoid people out there. I know the music is
>important, but why not omit the last line?
That might be a better approach.
>My thoughts anyway, feel free to disagree :)
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Thomas Lee
<j...@sys.uea.ac.uk> writes
>Have you been told this by the committee themselves? Given the
>goings-on in uk.net.news.* in the last few months, it would be unwise
>to trust any second-hand report of what the committee allegedly think.
Speaking as a member of the Committee, but not +for+ the committee, I
don't think we have any position. Having an agreed charter is certainly
desirable, but not something that is required.
I'm certainly supportive of the current RFD, and would expect it should
be possible to be adopted by fast track.
John Hawkes-Reed
> Well, someone else just repeated it, so if it's not it'll be denied
> pretty quickly. All it was was the bit about the charter not being listed
> with the rest because, being a legacy group, we didn't go through the
> current procedures. This seems a little odd, but if it's the case then we
> can presumably just jump through the hoops now and have done with it.
> It doesn't sound like much bother. In my view we might as well.
Or not.
Change the charter to "Cornflakes cornflakes cornflakes cornflakes
cornflakes", go through the motions and have done with it.
Does a charter or lack of one make a blind bit of difference to anyone
relevant?
[ With any luck Andy Oakley will be along in a second ]
--
JH-R
Graham Clark
> Graham Clark wrote:
>
> > In my view we might as well.
>
> Or not.
>
> Change the charter to "Cornflakes cornflakes cornflakes cornflakes
> cornflakes", go through the motions and have done with it.
Branflakes for that eventuality, Shirley?
> Does a charter or lack of one make a blind bit of difference to anyone
> relevant?
Dunno. But if there's a place that people are likely to be told to go look,
we might as well be listed there. Somebody useful might look there first.
No, stop laughing. It might happen.
John Hawkes-Reed
> John Hawkes-Reed <jk...@hplb.hpl.hp.com> writes:
> > Change the charter to "Cornflakes cornflakes cornflakes cornflakes
> > cornflakes", go through the motions and have done with it.
>
> Branflakes for that eventuality, Shirley?
True.
> > Does a charter or lack of one make a blind bit of difference to anyone
> > relevant?
>
> Dunno. But if there's a place that people are likely to be told to go look,
> we might as well be listed there. Somebody useful might look there first.
>
> No, stop laughing. It might happen.
... And salmon live in trees and eat pencils.
I could maybe see spam or trollage being met with complaints to relevant
ISP that <whatever> was off-charter, but to be brutal, does abuse@isp
give a flying one? I think not.
--
JH-R
Andrew Oakley
<jk...@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Change the charter to "Cornflakes cornflakes cornflakes cornflakes
>cornflakes", go through the motions and have done with it.
Seconded.
The UK Usenet Committee are a bunch of young rebellious upstart
newcommers trying to stir up trouble for established Usenet newsgroups
which predate the UK Usenet Committee, such as uk.people.gothic.
The UK Usenet Committee did not create uk.people.gothic and as such
the UK Usenet Committee has no business interferring with our affairs.
If the UK Usenet Committee wishes to correct their data so that they
use our proper charter, fine. However, I see no need for the venerable
readers of uk.people.gothic to have to jump over hurdles set by these
young whippersnappers.
Having the UK Usenet Committee decide what should happen to
uk.people.gothic is like the mice discussing what should happen to the
church.
The UKUC's argument is that our charter doesn't count because it
wasn't voted on in a way that adheres to their rules.
This argument is invalid. Since the committee and their rules didn't
exist at the time, such a position is like saying that a bill voted
into law in 1901 isn't valid today because it didn't adhere to the
modern convention of allowing women the vote.
[ I'm now having visions of a goth Mrs Pankhurst. Wuhhhhh... ]
From the uk.people.gothic FAQ: http://www.countb.co.uk/upgfaq
>Our single line description is:
>uk.people.gothic: Gothic culture, music, fashion and events in the
>UK
>
>Charter:
>"The uk.people.gothic newsgroup will be open to discussion of all
>aspects of gothic lifestyle, including the aspects of art and
>science that are relevant to gothic culture. It is hoped that the
>newsgroup will become a central place for discussions about the
>medium within the UK."
...
>The UPG charter is not listed at the UK Usenet Committee website
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/ for the simple reason that we came into
>existence before they did, ergo the formation of this newsgroup does
>not adhere to their rules. Our charter has been formally voted on
>twice- once on formation and once on the adoption of this FAQ. Our
>relationship with usenet.org.uk is, at best, indifferent. Please do
>NOT email UK Usenet Committee members regarding our charter or
>one-line description. We have agreed to differ.
Dejagoogle will provide you with the full bloody details.
John Hawkes-Reed wrote:
>[ With any luck Andy Oakley will be along in a second ]
With my zimmer frame of ROT13 and the trusty slippers of fair play.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=uk+usenet+committee+twats
>goths, despite occasional pagan tomfoolery, aren't
>psychic. Were we supposed to travel into the future,
>retrieve the rules and adhere to them in advance or what?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Oakley <andrew@Spam_Me_Not_oakley.net> www.andrew.oakley.net
"what is the use of music," thought Alice, "without drum machines?"
Graham Clark
> The UKUC's argument is that our charter doesn't count because it
> wasn't voted on in a way that adheres to their rules.
>
> This argument is invalid. Since the committee and their rules didn't
> exist at the time, such a position is like saying that a bill voted
> into law in 1901 isn't valid today because it didn't adhere to the
> modern convention of allowing women the vote.
Which is true. It does, however, leave us at a (very minor) impasse.
If the committee aren't going to accord legacy groups the status of more
recent ones, then we might as well legitimise our charter in their eyes.
We don't necessarily have to change our minds about the logic of their
position to do so.
I'm sure that you're about to say that it will ever make any difference
whatsoever and isn't worth the effort. And you could be right.
Dave Mayall
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:10:18 +0000, John Hawkes-Reed
> <jk...@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> >Change the charter to "Cornflakes cornflakes cornflakes cornflakes
> >cornflakes", go through the motions and have done with it.
>
> Seconded.
>
> The UK Usenet Committee are a bunch of young rebellious upstart
> newcommers trying to stir up trouble for established Usenet newsgroups
> which predate the UK Usenet Committee, such as uk.people.gothic.
Young??
Sorry, I don't think the committee is particularly young. Most of us
are 30+ (and some musch older than that)
> The UK Usenet Committee did not create uk.people.gothic and as such
> the UK Usenet Committee has no business interferring with our affairs.
Good, because the UK Usenet Committee is not interfering in your
affairs. This RFD is not promulgated by the Committee.
> If the UK Usenet Committee wishes to correct their data so that they
> use our proper charter, fine. However, I see no need for the venerable
> readers of uk.people.gothic to have to jump over hurdles set by these
> young whippersnappers.
You don't have to jump over any hurdles. The Committee has no wish
to correct anything. Our records show that uk.people.gothic has no
charter decided upon according to the current guidelines, AFAICS
our records are correct.
> Having the UK Usenet Committee decide what should happen to
> uk.people.gothic is like the mice discussing what should happen to the
> church.
True, but the committee aren't trying to decide anything.
> The UKUC's argument is that our charter doesn't count because it
> wasn't voted on in a way that adheres to their rules.
The situation is that uk.people.gothic was created on Jun 2nd 1995
by the Demon Newsmaster. Its creation message carried no charter.
The Committee came into existence later that year, with a remit from
the major ISPs to co-ordinate future creation and removal of Groups.
Part of the changes that came about then is that all future groups
had to have charters. No action was taken then or now to impose
charters on those groups that did not have them.
In bringing existing groups into the system any group where the
original creation message contained a charter was assumed to have
a charter, whilst those without were assumed to have no charter.
This seems fair, as placing any other putative charter on the site
would lead to disagreements.
uk.people.gothic can continue as it is with a charter that its members
recognise, but which the committee doesn't. If people want a copy of
charter on the usenet.org.uk site they have to formally adopt it.
Thomas Lee
<andrew@Spam_Me_Not.oakley.net> writes
>The UK Usenet Committee are a bunch of young rebellious upstart
>newcommers trying to stir up trouble for established Usenet newsgroups
>which predate the UK Usenet Committee, such as uk.people.gothic.
The Committee are not attempting to stir up trouble = the proponent is
not now, and has never been a member of the Committee.
>The UK Usenet Committee did not create uk.people.gothic and as such
>the UK Usenet Committee has no business interferring with our affairs.
Agreed. On both counts.
>If the UK Usenet Committee wishes to correct their data so that they
>use our proper charter, fine. However, I see no need for the venerable
>readers of uk.people.gothic to have to jump over hurdles set by these
>young whippersnappers.
We're hardly young = but the compliment is nice.
A lot has changed since uk.* was created. And a formal charter would be
a nice thing to have.
But there is no one forcing you to formally adopt a charter. Seems to
me, if users of upg do not want to change the status quo, then there
needs to be no change.
NB: The current proposal was not brought by the Committee.
I guess you have a simple choice - either status quo, or allow Dave H's
RFD to go through. The latter would allow www.usenet.org.uk to be
updated with an official charter (and possibly avoid having the de-facto
charter posted with the faq as the faq maintainer chooses).
Although there are some minor issues with the existing proposal, the
proponent seems to be working his way through these, I can't see that
this is really controversial - more administrative tidiness. And with
just a tad more support, this could well go through on fast track -
IMHO.
>Having the UK Usenet Committee decide what should happen to
>uk.people.gothic is like the mice discussing what should happen to the
>church.
I have offered a few personal suggestions - the proponent is free to
take them or leave them as he wishes. They are offered on and behalf of
no one but me.
The Committee is certainly are not deciding what should happen to u.p.g.
What happens to u.p.g is entirely up to those who take part in this
discussion - and should it come to it those who vote.
>The UKUC's argument is that our charter doesn't count because it wasn't
>voted on in a way that adheres to their rules.
Agreed - the unofficial charter, currently posted as a faq, was never
formally adopted. There is currently no official charter for this group.
>This argument is invalid. Since the committee and their rules didn't
>exist at the time, such a position is like saying that a bill voted
>into law in 1901 isn't valid today because it didn't adhere to the
>modern convention of allowing women the vote.
This can easily be fixed. As I said, I think this should go through via
fast track - if there is just a tad more support for it.
UK.* gets good propagation because it is well run and well managed. Good
propagation benefits both current and future users. But no one is
forcing any changes, least of all the committee.
Iain Bowen
Graham Clark <g...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote:
>James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes:
>
>> if you wish to validate such claims. If it *sounds* strange, it may
>> well not be true.
>
> Well, someone else just repeated it, so if it's not it'll be denied
>pretty quickly.
Well, it's a load of rubbish. If a legacy group wants to adopt a charter,
then that's up to them. Committee are certainly not in the business of
going around trying to get legacy groups to adopt charters.
Iain (personal capacity)
--
\/ Control for uk.*
Full information on uk.* newsgroups at http://www.usenet.org.uk
Iain Bowen. in deepest B13. Also available at alaric(at)alaric.org.uk
Andrew Oakley
<da...@research-group.co.uk> wrote:
>Andrew Oakley wrote:
>> The UK Usenet Committee did not create uk.people.gothic and as such
>> the UK Usenet Committee has no business interferring with our affairs.
>Good, because the UK Usenet Committee is not interfering in your
>affairs. This RFD is not promulgated by the Committee.
No, but if the RFD passes to its eventual conclusion, action would be
taken by the UKUC which would affect UPG.
I don't object to the raw actions proposed in this RFD, but I do
object to the UKUC forcing, or being seen to force, its control upon a
newsgroup that predates the UKUC.
>> If the UK Usenet Committee wishes to correct their data so that they
>> use our proper charter, fine. However, I see no need for the venerable
...
>Our records show that uk.people.gothic has no
>charter decided upon according to the current guidelines, AFAICS
>our records are correct.
Your records may or may not be correct, but they are definitely highly
misleading.
The statement on:
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.people.gothic.html#uk.people.gothic
...that "No Charter available for this newsgroup (although an
unofficial charter, never formally adopted, is published regularly as
a FAQ on the group)" is factually incorrect.
There is a charter available for UPG and it was formally adopted in
1995 using the formal standards of the time.
It just so happens that the formal adoption standards of the time
predated the creation of UKUC and therefore do not meet (and, without
time travel, could NEVER HAVE met) with what UKUC currently considers
to be formal adoption standards.
If the UKUC wishes to correct this statement by changing it to "The
charter for this newsgroup predates the creation of the UK Usenet
Committee and therefore does not adhere to our new rules" then that
would be fine. However, that isn't what this RFD is about.
In addition, the website www.usenet.org.uk is further misleading in so
far as it suggests to readers that it is the definitive authority for
all UK usenet information, which, as we have already discussed, is
incorrect.
>In bringing existing groups into the system any group where the
>original creation message contained a charter was assumed to have
>a charter, whilst those without were assumed to have no charter.
>This seems fair, as placing any other putative charter on the site
>would lead to disagreements.
Only if you consider the path of least effort to be fair.
What would have been fairer would have been if UKUC had consulted with
the legacy groups, or had done even the slightest bit of research,
whereupon they would have discovered that uk.people.gothic did indeed
have a charter.
>uk.people.gothic can continue as it is with a charter that its members
>recognise, but which the committee doesn't.
Which is rather my point, and John's.
Frankly, as a uk.people.gothic reader, I don't much care what the UKUC
does or says, so long as it doesn't perpetuate incorrect data and
doesn't pretend to be any kind of governing authority for, or final
arbiter of factual information about, uk.people.gothic .
UK Usenet Committee is not, and has never been, anything to do with
uk.people.gothic, which is why UKUC should butt out.
Is this RFD aimed at correcting the UKUC's factually inaccurate
information? If so, I support it.
Is this RFC aimed at making uk.people.gothic comply with the UKUC as a
governing body? If so, I object to it.
>If people want a copy of
>charter on the usenet.org.uk site they have to formally adopt it.
I don't *want* a copy of the charter on the usenet.org.uk site (and I
don't believe that the majority of uk.people.gothic readers do
either), any more than I *want* the government of Mongolia to formally
recognise the motto for the county of Gloucestershire. What the
government of Mongolia chooses to do is entirely their own business,
so long as they don't pretend to be an authority on county mottos
whilst at the same time getting the motto wrong.
We're not part of your new club and we don't see any benefit in
becoming members. We manage just fine without you, thanks.
If you'd like our opinion, if you'd like us to help you, our opinion
is: kindly stop peddling inaccurate information about us. If you don't
want our opinion, or you think that you're helping us, or if you want
us to jump through some hoops to get our opinion formally adopted,
we'll leave you and your formal procedures in peace.
http://www.montypython.net/brianmm3.php#Scene%2021
un...@globalnet.co.uk (Michael Johnson) wrote in message
news:<3c664972...@news.uk.xo.com>...
> IMO it's a prime case of 'it ain't broke, so don't fix it'.
Well... I agree that the status quo, whereby uk.people.gothic ignores
the UKUC for several years at a time until the UKUC starts poking
their nose in again, is working very well.
That said, if this RFD means that UK Usenet Committee will be
magnanamous enough to admit that their information is factually wrong,
I would support this RFD's actions in correcting it, provided that, in
doing so, it does not suggest that the UKUC are any kind of authority
regarding uk.people.gothic .
Dave H
<snip/>
> In bringing existing groups into the system any group where the
> original creation message contained a charter was assumed to have
> a charter, whilst those without were assumed to have no charter.
> This seems fair, as placing any other putative charter on the site
> would lead to disagreements.
Thanks, you've described the situation exactly as I see it. It can be
noted that whilst UPG's creation message didn't contain a charter, it
/does/ have a single line description; as a result the entry at
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.people.gothic.html> also has no charter but
/does/ include the newsgroups line.
It's also worth pointing out that the idea of newsgroups containing
their charter in the creation message is /not/ some idea invented by the
UK Usenet Committee; it was accepted as good practise all over Usenet
(even in alt.*) before the UK Usenet Committee came to exist. So it's
not the UK Usenet Committee's "fault" that there is a difference of
opinion re. the charter -- it's an unfortunate oversight from when the
group was created. This is what the RFD is trying to address.
Dave H
<snip/>
> This is actually just because we had a big argument over mp3-sharing
> on the group. You're quite right to say it wouldn't be a good idea,
> and thankfully it's not (unless I've just lost the plot entirely) a
> serious suggestion.
The right honourable Mr Clark is quite correct. Regarding the idea of
mentioning MP3 technology within the UPG charter, I was -- to use a
colloquialism -- "having a laff". Now, back to the matter in hand...
Dave ;o)
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:36:35 +0000, Dave Mayall
><da...@research-group.co.uk> wrote:
>>Andrew Oakley wrote:
>>> The UK Usenet Committee did not create uk.people.gothic and as such
>>> the UK Usenet Committee has no business interferring with our affairs.
>>Good, because the UK Usenet Committee is not interfering in your
>>affairs. This RFD is not promulgated by the Committee.
>
>No, but if the RFD passes to its eventual conclusion, action would be
>taken by the UKUC which would affect UPG.
>
>I don't object to the raw actions proposed in this RFD, but I do
>object to the UKUC forcing, or being seen to force, its control upon a
>newsgroup that predates the UKUC.
upg was created, as someone else has pointed out, by Demon Internet,
and then picked up by other ISPs. That means that Demon Internet was,
at the time, the controlling authority for the group. However, in
1995, Demon handed over that control to the newly form UK Usenet
Committee. As the group was created by Demon, it was within their
right to do so, and thus it's now legitimate for the committe to
assert authority over the group.
If you were to now go to Demon and ask them to make changes to the
group (eg, publishing a new charter, or changing the moderation
status, or whatever), they would simply point you at the organisation
that is their successor in this respect. That organisation is the
committee.
A similar situation applies to all the legacy groups. Their creators
all voluntarily handed over control to the committee, and hence the
committee are now the rightful authority.
>In addition, the website www.usenet.org.uk is further misleading in so
>far as it suggests to readers that it is the definitive authority for
>all UK usenet information, which, as we have already discussed, is
>incorrect.
It is the definitive authority, at least as far as the web is
concerned. The real definitive authority is the newsgroup,
uk.net.news.announce, but the documents held on www.usenet.org.uk are
all exact copies of those posted to unna.
>>In bringing existing groups into the system any group where the
>>original creation message contained a charter was assumed to have
>>a charter, whilst those without were assumed to have no charter.
>>This seems fair, as placing any other putative charter on the site
>>would lead to disagreements.
>
>Only if you consider the path of least effort to be fair.
It seems fair to me. upg was created without a charter; that may
possibly have been a mistake by the original creators (Demon
Internet), but you can't turn the clock back and make it appear as if
there was one.
Would you have preferred the committee to have imposed a charter on
the group in August 1995?
>Frankly, as a uk.people.gothic reader, I don't much care what the UKUC
>does or says, so long as it doesn't perpetuate incorrect data and
>doesn't pretend to be any kind of governing authority for, or final
>arbiter of factual information about, uk.people.gothic .
That's a bit like claiming that because I set up my business when the
Tories were in power, the present Labour government has no authority
to change my tax rates. The fact remains that the committee, like
Labour, were voted in as the legitimate governing body, and no-one in
uk.* (or the UK) has any grounds on which to reject that authority.
Mark
--
Visit Mark's World at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk/mark/
Peter Parry
<da...@research-group.co.uk> wrote:
>are 30+ (and some musch older than that)
You've left your teeth out again. Young - hah!
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
Dave H
<snip/>
> Ok fair enough - but why? Why for the group and why for yourself? Not
> having a dig just interested.
What Mark Goodge says. ;o)
If you're wondering what's motivated me, though -- I've been aware of
the inconsistency[1] for a few years, and for all that time it's been
bugging me. The subject of newsgroup creation recently appeared on UPG,
and so I thought now is as good a time as any to try to resolve things.
I don't want it to still be bugging me for another two years. (Yes, I
am a pedant.)
Cheers,
Dave
NP: VNV Nation: Carbon
[1] Said Dave, diplomatically... ;o)
Andrew Oakley
Oh jolly good, a Usenet history lesson... My name is John Hawkes-Reed
and I claim my five pounds.
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:41:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
<ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>upg was created, as someone else has pointed out, by Demon Internet
As part of official Demon Internet business, or because one of the
disaffected breakaway Brit goths on alt.gothic happened to work at
Demon Internet and arranged for the uk.people.gothic creation message
to be issued off his own (no pun intended) bat?
IIRC [1], I think you'll find it's the latter, which rather puts the
kybosh on any discussion about "official" or "accepted" Usenet
procedure regarding uk.people.gothic . Any talk of Demon Internet
having an "official" hand in the creation of uk.people.gothic is,
AFAIK, merely wishful thinking on your part. It was a Demon employee
messing about in his spare time. So Demon Internet were hardly in any
position to "hand over control" of uk.people.gothic to anyone; as a
company, they had never "officially" sanctioned the creation of the
group in the first place.
(Your post also makes the invalid assumption that the newsgroup
creator is somehow the "owner" of the newsgroup and has the power to
"hand over" control to another authority. Usenet historians could do a
whole extra thread on why that is So Very Wrong.)
The only pronouncements that you could even begin to call "official"
regarding a charter for uk.people.gothic are the two organised votes,
one which took place immediately prior to newsgroup creation, and one
which took place upon adoption of the FAQ. Both of these agreed upon
the charter as currently worded in the FAQ.
[1] Admittedly this is stretching my memory, it was a *long* time ago
and unfortunately dejagoogle's archives of the early uk.people.gothic
and mid-period alt.gothic are sadly incomplete. If you find anything
in a Usenet archive that disproves this, I'd genuinely love to read
it.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>
>Oh jolly good, a Usenet history lesson... My name is John Hawkes-Reed
>and I claim my five pounds.
>
>On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:41:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
><ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>upg was created, as someone else has pointed out, by Demon Internet
>
>As part of official Demon Internet business, or because one of the
>disaffected breakaway Brit goths on alt.gothic happened to work at
>Demon Internet and arranged for the uk.people.gothic creation message
>to be issued off his own (no pun intended) bat?
There's probably not a huge difference between the two, to be honest.
That's how most groups got created, in pre-committee days.
>IIRC [1], I think you'll find it's the latter, which rather puts the
>kybosh on any discussion about "official" or "accepted" Usenet
>procedure regarding uk.people.gothic . Any talk of Demon Internet
>having an "official" hand in the creation of uk.people.gothic is,
>AFAIK, merely wishful thinking on your part. It was a Demon employee
>messing about in his spare time. So Demon Internet were hardly in any
>position to "hand over control" of uk.people.gothic to anyone; as a
>company, they had never "officially" sanctioned the creation of the
>group in the first place.
Demon didn't hand over control of upg per se, they - along with the
other ISPs - handed over control of uk.*. That happened to include
upg, long with all the other pre-existing groups. The committee could,
at that point, have chosen to impose a charter on upg (and there were,
and remain, those who think that the committee should do just that
with all the legacy groups). But they decided not to, preferring to
leave it up the the users of the groups whether or not to RFD a formal
charter creation under the new system. I think that was the right
choice at the time, and still think it's the right choice.
>(Your post also makes the invalid assumption that the newsgroup
>creator is somehow the "owner" of the newsgroup and has the power to
>"hand over" control to another authority. Usenet historians could do a
>whole extra thread on why that is So Very Wrong.)
I'm not suggesting that Demon were the "owner" of the group, merely
that the group was created under the auspices of Demon. Whether that
was official or unofficial is, in this context, irrelevent. Before the
committee came into being, the ISPs controlled uk.*, in a sort of
collaborative and anarchic way, and the committe was set up to try and
bring some measure of democracy and order into it.
>The only pronouncements that you could even begin to call "official"
>regarding a charter for uk.people.gothic are the two organised votes,
>one which took place immediately prior to newsgroup creation, and one
>which took place upon adoption of the FAQ. Both of these agreed upon
>the charter as currently worded in the FAQ.
The problem is that the first of these votes was never recorded, which
is why the group came to be created without a charter, while the
second was after the current system was put into place and therefore
can't be considered "official" in any sense.
All that the current proposal is doing, as far as I can see, is
tidying up this situation by formalising the intent of existing
charter within the current standard wording. If you'd prefer to stick
with an unofficial charter, that's fine - as I said before, no-one is
forcing you to adopt a new wording. What you can't do is claim to be
in some way independent of the rules that govern the uk.* hierarchy -
the mere fact that the name of the group begins with "uk." places it
under the control of those who control the hierarchy.
If the users of the legacy groups - including upg - at the time had
wanted to stay under the old system, they could have voted against the
creation of the committee. But, in fact, very few of them did, and
they were outvoted. You may disagree with that decision, you may think
they were wrong to vote for committee control, and you might even vote
against it now were the same vote to be held today. But if democracy
is to have any meaning, then those who are outvoted have to accept the
decision of the majority - and it was the decision of the majority of
the legacy groups' users themselves to set up the committee and the
associated management system. Trying to rerun that debate isn't going
to get you anywhere; the vote has already been held and those who
wanted to stay outside the committee system lost.
Peter Constantine
[snippage]
>Before the committee came into being, the ISPs controlled uk.*, in a sort
>of collaborative and anarchic way, and the committe was set up to try
>and bring some measure of democracy and order into it.
Given a choice between collaborative anarchy and democratic order I know
which I'd choose (must have picked up a dose of the Sturrocks)...
x
[...turn your back for 5 minutes and the place is full
of 30-somethings posting articles about Status Quo]
Pyromancer & Midnight
Once upon a time, Graham Clark <g...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote:
>Chris_Dar...@darkfire.co.uk (Chris Darkfire) writes:
>
>> On 11 Feb 2002 10:36:45 +0000, Graham Clark <g...@sanger.ac.uk>
>> scribbled with virtual crayon:
>> > It doesn't look broken to me, but I've been told several times that this
>> >committee bunch think it's broken. It sounds more than a little petty, but
>> >it's probably worthwhile getting it fixed up.
>> But by that logic you should start listening to Westlife or something
>> as that is proper music your mum will like. Music by comitee will get
>> you lowest common denominator rubbish - dare to be different!
>
> Eh? AFAICT we can go through what are now the proper channels, adopt
>something as close as we like to our old charter, and it's done. The
>only difference will be that the uk.* people have the consistency they
>want and we'll get the charter listed somewhere where people might want
>to go looking for it. I don't really see what there is to object to here,
>except maybe going to the effort.
It doesn't even need that much effort - in fact we could have the exact
charter we've got now, all we need is 12 more to vote for than against -
and it appears the unnc poster most notorious for attempting to push[1]
everyone to use the "standard" RFDMaker wording has quit the group[2],
so there probably wouldn't even be that much argument.
On the other hand, as it takes a majority of at least 12 in favour to
get a change in the status of an existing group, if we (upg) decide we
don't want any changes, then we can just collectively vote it into the
ground.
u.p.g is a legacy group, and hence has "grandfather" rights to remain as
originally created. There used to be (or at least appeared to be) a
"tidying tendency"[3] within the unnc/unnm arena that wanted everything
brought neatly into the new structure (IIRC that tendency also dislikes
the existence of uk.people.* as a hierarchy, on the basis that
"newsgroups should be about subjects, not people" - something with which
I do not agree), however that view has not generally prevailed, IMO.
It occurred to me over a year ago to propose making the current u.p.g
charter "official", however I didn't consider myself enough of a regular
poster here, and didn't want to start a pointless upg/unnc flame-war.
[1] Some may disagree with this POV, however that's always how it's
looked to me.
[2] i.e. doesn't seem to have posted anything for a while.
[3] This isn't intended as a comment on any individual person, just a
general observation and memories of various past battles re legacy
groups.
- P
--
- Pyromancer & Midnight.
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Goth Rock!
Pyromancer & Midnight
Once upon a time, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>I would note that the Committee generally don't have a history of going
>round and policing group charters and making people fix them, however.
>At least, I can't think of examples of such. (Though a number of
>members have played 'Dr Death' for moribund groups, which is a different
>issue entirely since no-one is even beginning to suggest that, of
>course.)
Ahem. Dr Death visiting u.p.g? Nah - we'd just assimilate him...
:-)
Pyromancer & Midnight
Once upon a time, Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>All that the current proposal is doing, as far as I can see, is
>tidying up this situation by formalising the intent of existing
>charter within the current standard wording. If you'd prefer to stick
>with an unofficial charter, that's fine - as I said before, no-one is
>forcing you to adopt a new wording.
I mostly agree with Mark, but take exception to this bit - it makes it
sound as if we have a choice between "the official format" or an
"unofficial charter".
In fact, if we wanted to, we could, by sheer weight of numbers, vote in
our present charter, unchanged, as the official one. We don't have to
use any particular form of words, though there'd probably be less
argument if we just went with the current "standard" one, which is what
this RFD appears to be.
At the end of the day it's down to the readership of u.p.g to decide.
Andy Dingley
>The UK Usenet Committee are a bunch of young rebellious upstart
>newcommers trying to stir up trouble for established Usenet newsgroups
>which predate the UK Usenet Committee, such as uk.people.gothic.
Shouldn't the UK net cops be looking to their own jumbo-family-sized
ongoing trollfight in uk.net.news.management before starting on u.p.g?
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
da...@research-group.co.uk "Dave Mayall" writes:
> The situation is that uk.people.gothic was created on Jun 2nd 1995
> by the Demon Newsmaster. Its creation message carried no charter.
>
> The Committee came into existence later that year, with a remit from
> the major ISPs to co-ordinate future creation and removal of Groups.
> Part of the changes that came about then is that all future groups
> had to have charters. No action was taken then or now to impose
> charters on those groups that did not have them.
However, attempts have been made at various stages to "suggest" that
uk.telecom should have a charter, notably when uk.telecom.mobile was
created, thus bringing into existence a new hierarchy. Whilst the
uk.telecom.* hierarchy now does have a charter, uk.telecom still does
not, because there was a vote taken to the effect that it should not have
one.
And the group still works *excellently* well without, TYVM.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of
distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr-
easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
Dave Hillam
23:50:21 +0000 MID<DA0y0BC9...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk>:
[to unnc only]
>and it appears the unnc poster most notorious for attempting to push[1]
>everyone to use the "standard" RFDMaker wording has quit the group[2],
[...]
>[1] Some may disagree with this POV, however that's always how it's
>looked to me.
>
>[2] i.e. doesn't seem to have posted anything for a while.
Either you're obsessive, or stupid, or both. Give this a rest, ffs.
--
Dave Hillam
the "reply-to" address is valid,
but please keep replies in the group
Chris Croughton
<pyrom...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In fact, if we wanted to, we could, by sheer weight of numbers, vote in
>our present charter, unchanged, as the official one. We don't have to
>use any particular form of words, though there'd probably be less
>argument if we just went with the current "standard" one, which is what
>this RFD appears to be.
Well, you'd have to vote against this RFD and then wait 3 months (unless
"re-open discussion" is an option) and then raise your own RFD with your
preferred wording and take it through to a vote, but yes you could do
that. The only options on the current RFD, though, are to go for the
wording there or to stay without an 'official' charter (or get the
proponent to change them, of course, which is what the discussion
periiod is about).
>At the end of the day it's down to the readership of u.p.g to decide.
If they care, of course. I do rather hope it goes to a vote, I'd like
to see how many of the people in UPG actually care one way or the other
(my suspicion is that, like most other newsgroups, the vast majority
have no interest or can't be bothered; I'd love to see a newsgroup which
actually did care en masse about its charter).
Chris C
Chris Croughton
<pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:36:35 +0000, Dave Mayall
><da...@research-group.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>are 30+ (and some musch older than that)
>
>You've left your teeth out again. Young - hah!
I believe that some of them may be (shock, horror!) under 40. Young
whippersnappers!
However, I think that the original point was that they are 'young' in
Usenet terms, some of them having only used it after net.september.
Chris C
Tim Miller
message news:DA0y0BC9...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk...
>
> It doesn't even need that much effort - in fact we could have the exact
> charter we've got now, all we need is 12 more to vote for than against -
> and it appears the unnc poster most notorious for attempting to push[1]
> everyone to use the "standard" RFDMaker wording has quit the group[2],
> so there probably wouldn't even be that much argument.
>
> u.p.g is a legacy group, and hence has "grandfather" rights to remain as
> originally created. There used to be (or at least appeared to be) a
> "tidying tendency"[3] within the unnc/unnm arena that wanted everything
> brought neatly into the new structure (IIRC that tendency also dislikes
> the existence of uk.people.* as a hierarchy, on the basis that
> "newsgroups should be about subjects, not people" - something with which
> I do not agree), however that view has not generally prevailed, IMO.
>
> [3] This isn't intended as a comment on any individual person, just a
> general observation and memories of various past battles re legacy
> groups.
>
I can see exactly where you're coming from. However, I consider this
"tidying up" as just a case of recognising that wording in a charter ought
to be as specific as possible, and in most cases there's a set of wording
that works very well - so rather than fiddle about with it, why not use
that?
I'm not saying every charter should follow that exactly. I know I didn't
for the two groups I've had RFDed and created - I just used the bits I
thought worked well and altered the bits that I thought didn't.
I don't think anyone thinks charters must be done in X way with Y formatting
all of the time. I think people on unnc care most about charters being
understandable and unambiguous.
Tim (tm)
Dave Mayall
> As part of official Demon Internet business, or because one of the
> disaffected breakaway Brit goths on alt.gothic happened to work at
> Demon Internet and arranged for the uk.people.gothic creation message
> to be issued off his own (no pun intended) bat?
He issued the control message as newsm...@demon.net, so he was
purporting to be acting in an official capacity.
Thomas Lee
<ch...@keristor.org> writes
>However, I think that the original point was that they are 'young' in
>Usenet terms, some of them having only used it after net.september.
Some of them may be - but by no means all.
THomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Dave Mayall
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:36:35 +0000, Dave Mayall
> <da...@research-group.co.uk> wrote:
> >Good, because the UK Usenet Committee is not interfering in your
> >affairs. This RFD is not promulgated by the Committee.
>
> No, but if the RFD passes to its eventual conclusion, action would be
> taken by the UKUC which would affect UPG.
What action do you imagine that the Committee will take?
> I don't object to the raw actions proposed in this RFD, but I do
> object to the UKUC forcing, or being seen to force, its control upon a
> newsgroup that predates the UKUC.
The newsgroup was created by the Demon Newsmaster. Demon was at the time
the group was created the controlling authority for the Group. Demon
was one of the ISPs whichg entered into an agreement to establish the
committee and which vested its control over newsgroups in the committee.
The committee is the controlling authority for uk.people.gothic in
proper
sucession to Demon Internet.
> >Our records show that uk.people.gothic has no
> >charter decided upon according to the current guidelines, AFAICS
> >our records are correct.
>
> Your records may or may not be correct, but they are definitely highly
> misleading.
They show the position as far as the committee is concerned. The
committee has a consistent position upon what constitutes a charter
for a group established before the committee existed.
> The statement on:
>
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.people.gothic.html#uk.people.gothic
>
> ...that "No Charter available for this newsgroup (although an
> unofficial charter, never formally adopted, is published regularly as
> a FAQ on the group)" is factually incorrect.
>
> There is a charter available for UPG and it was formally adopted in
> 1995 using the formal standards of the time.
I'm unsure what formal standards existed or were used. The committee
regards the existence of a charter in the creation message as the only
evidence of formal adoption before the committee existed.
> It just so happens that the formal adoption standards of the time
> predated the creation of UKUC and therefore do not meet (and, without
> time travel, could NEVER HAVE met) with what UKUC currently considers
> to be formal adoption standards.
Other groups from that time had such a charter.
> If the UKUC wishes to correct this statement by changing it to "The
> charter for this newsgroup predates the creation of the UK Usenet
> Committee and therefore does not adhere to our new rules" then that
> would be fine. However, that isn't what this RFD is about.
>
> In addition, the website www.usenet.org.uk is further misleading in so
> far as it suggests to readers that it is the definitive authority for
> all UK usenet information, which, as we have already discussed, is
> incorrect.
The committee *IS* the definitive authority for all uk.* groups.
Demon Internet who were originaly the authority transferred their
rights to the committee.
Whether you like it or not, it is the case. If somebody RFDed removal
of uk.people.gothic, and it passed a vote, con...@usenet.org.uk
would issue control messages to remove the group.
> Only if you consider the path of least effort to be fair.
It isn't about least effort. It is about definitive sources.
> What would have been fairer would have been if UKUC had consulted with
> the legacy groups, or had done even the slightest bit of research,
> whereupon they would have discovered that uk.people.gothic did indeed
> have a charter.
What do you imagine an RFD is. It is consulting the group to see if they
want to adopt a wording as a formal charter.
> >uk.people.gothic can continue as it is with a charter that its members
> >recognise, but which the committee doesn't.
>
> Which is rather my point, and John's.
So, vote against the RFD in which the readers of upg are being asked for
their views!
> Frankly, as a uk.people.gothic reader, I don't much care what the UKUC
> does or says, so long as it doesn't perpetuate incorrect data and
> doesn't pretend to be any kind of governing authority for, or final
> arbiter of factual information about, uk.people.gothic .
The committee *IS* the authority in respect of creation removal and
rechartering of ALL uk.* groups.
It is the competent authority in respect of OFFICIAL charters.
Nothing in the above prevents the users of a group from adopting
some unofficial charter which differs from that on the usenet.org.uk
website.
> UK Usenet Committee is not, and has never been, anything to do with
> uk.people.gothic, which is why UKUC should butt out.
The committee has a duty to publish legitimate RFDs. We aren't
butting in, merely doing what we are here to do.
> Is this RFD aimed at correcting the UKUC's factually inaccurate
> information? If so, I support it.
You'd have to ask the proponent. I think it is useful if it regularises
things by acknowledging formally that which the regulars have always
thought was the charter.
> Is this RFC aimed at making uk.people.gothic comply with the UKUC as a
> governing body? If so, I object to it.
It will make not one iota of difference to the authority of the
Committee in respect of upg.
> >If people want a copy of
> >charter on the usenet.org.uk site they have to formally adopt it.
>
> I don't *want* a copy of the charter on the usenet.org.uk site (and I
> don't believe that the majority of uk.people.gothic readers do
> either), any more than I *want* the government of Mongolia to formally
> recognise the motto for the county of Gloucestershire. What the
> government of Mongolia chooses to do is entirely their own business,
> so long as they don't pretend to be an authority on county mottos
> whilst at the same time getting the motto wrong.
The Government of Mongolia couldn't abolish the county of
Gloucestershire.
The Government of the United Kingdom could, despite the fact that
Gloucestershire existed before the United Kingdom came into existence.
> We're not part of your new club and we don't see any benefit in
> becoming members. We manage just fine without you, thanks.
You are a part of uk.* there is no opt-out available.
> If you'd like our opinion, if you'd like us to help you, our opinion
> is: kindly stop peddling inaccurate information about us. If you don't
> want our opinion, or you think that you're helping us, or if you want
> us to jump through some hoops to get our opinion formally adopted,
> we'll leave you and your formal procedures in peace.
Do as you wish. The information at www.usenet.org.uk is
definitive.
> Well... I agree that the status quo, whereby uk.people.gothic ignores
> the UKUC for several years at a time until the UKUC starts poking
> their nose in again, is working very well.
The committee is NOT poking its nose in. The proponent is the one who
wrote the RFD.
> That said, if this RFD means that UK Usenet Committee will be
> magnanamous enough to admit that their information is factually wrong,
> I would support this RFD's actions in correcting it, provided that, in
> doing so, it does not suggest that the UKUC are any kind of authority
> regarding uk.people.gothic .
I think that an RFD which removes any element of doubt is a good thing.
The committee is the controlling authority for uk.*, resultant from
Demon handing control to us (a process which began BEFORE upg was
created)
Mark Goodge
Pyromancer & Midnight wrote:
>
> < From: is a spamtrap, Reply-To: works though >
>
> Once upon a time, Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >All that the current proposal is doing, as far as I can see, is
> >tidying up this situation by formalising the intent of existing
> >charter within the current standard wording. If you'd prefer to stick
> >with an unofficial charter, that's fine - as I said before, no-one is
> >forcing you to adopt a new wording.
>
> I mostly agree with Mark, but take exception to this bit - it makes it
> sound as if we have a choice between "the official format" or an
> "unofficial charter".
>
> In fact, if we wanted to, we could, by sheer weight of numbers, vote in
> our present charter, unchanged, as the official one. We don't have to
> use any particular form of words, though there'd probably be less
> argument if we just went with the current "standard" one, which is what
> this RFD appears to be.
That's not entirely true. For a start, the committee could refuse to
allow an RFD to be posted if they seriously disagreed with the content
(although I doubt they'd care that much about the wording of a charter).
But, more importantly, going against the flow to that extent would
guarantee significant opposition from other users of uk.*, who could
easily outvote you if they cared enough about it.
> At the end of the day it's down to the readership of u.p.g to decide.
Not quite. It's up to the users of upg to decide whether to put it to
the vote, yes, but having done so anyone can vote on it - not just users
of the group in question. In practical terms, you're unlikely to get
many people from outside the group taking part in the ballot, but the
theoretical possibility exists and could become a significant reality if
you[1] piss them off too much.
There have been occasions in the past when a group of people have come
into unnc stamping their feet and demanding to have exactly what they
want, the way they want it and nothing but what they want, and ended up
getting precisely nothing because they weren't prepared to compromise or
hold a rational discussion. I don't think that the users of upg deserve
that kind of fate, but there have been a few posts in this thread which
hint at that kind of attitude lurking in the background. There's no need
to turn this into a upg v the committee argument; the only real
questions are a) whether you want to formalise the charter situation and
b) whether the proposed wording is acceptable for that purpose.
[1] "You" here being generic, not directed at the author to whom I am
replying.
Mark
Dave J.
uk.net.news.config, 'Dave Mayall' told us :
>> We're not part of your new club and we don't see any benefit in
>> becoming members. We manage just fine without you, thanks.
>
>You are a part of uk.* there is no opt-out available.
Yes there is, arrive in uk.net.news.config and vote the committee out.
Ok, it would take a while but it would be pretty final...
--
Dave Johnson : req...@freeuk.com
Andrew Oakley
> The committee *IS* the definitive authority for all uk.* groups.
The committee is nothing more than a bunch of self-appointed
busybodies who have managed to gain some support from ISPs soley on
the ground that the UKUC makes more noise than anybody else.
uk.people.gothic has always administered itself. Quietly. Without
fuss.
We don't need your new club. Please go away.
> Demon Internet who were originaly the authority transferred their
> rights to the committee.
See my previous reply regarding the total lack of Demon's "authority".
> Whether you like it or not, it is the case. If somebody RFDed removal
> of uk.people.gothic, and it passed a vote, con...@usenet.org.uk
> would issue control messages to remove the group.
Imagine this:
It is eight years ago. The world is an anarchy. Anyone can do
anything.
You've been happily living in your friends' house for some time.
Eventually you and some of your mates decide to build your own house.
Once built, you never go out of your house, because it is anarchy out
there. You and your house mates have organised everything inside your
house. You're quite happy in your house.
Meanwhile, unbeknownst to you, a new club is started up. They start
forming a tin-pot government run from a new clubhouse they've built up
the road.
No-one has come round and asked if you want this government. Nobody in
your house is even aware of this new government, because nobody in
your house goes out of the house, let alone into the new clubhouse.
When you built the house, you painted your bedroom blue, but the
tin-pot government, who've never visited your house, have official
records that say that your bedroom isn't painted at all.
Since you don't know much about the tin-pot government, you don't
really care what their records say.
Then one of your house mates mentions to the tin-pot government that
their records need correcting.
The tin-pot government representative then comes round to your house
and asks you to fill out a zillion forms in order to apply for a
bedroom paint colour change permit.
You tell them to that you're not really interested in filling out
their forms, but if they'd like to pop inside the house, they will
discover that your bedroom is indeed painted blue, so they are welcome
to correct their records.
Finally, one of the tin-pot councillors says, in a very threatening
tone, that he has the power to demolish your house.
Would you start filling out the forms, or would you tell them to sod
off?
> Nothing in the above prevents the users of a group from adopting
> some unofficial charter which differs from that on the usenet.org.uk
> website.
We already have an official charter using our official rules, offical
traditions and offical customs. We have had our own polls controlled
by an independent vote-taker. We have had FAQ editorial meetings. We
have created procedures and carried through motions. We even have our
own spam & troll police force. All these official customs were in
place before your little club was even born.
Our official rules, official traditions and official customs just
don't equate with yours. That doesn't mean that our official rules
aren't official. It just means they don't match yours.
Stop calling our charter "unofficial", it is highly patronising,
offensive and provocative.
> I think that an RFD which removes any element of doubt is a good thing.
I think that an RFD which forces the UKUC to correct their false
information is a good thing.
--
Andrew Oakley
James Coupe
Oakley <eviland...@cimmerii.demon.co.uk> writes:
>uk.people.gothic has always administered itself. Quietly. Without
>fuss.
>
>We don't need your new club. Please go away.
Erm, who do you think started this RFD?
Hint: it's nothing to do with the Committee or with a recognisable unn*
regular.
Whilst the RFD is in progress using the proper, authoritative guidelines
(and with PGP keys in circulation with INN etc., the opinion that you
can just opt out because you want to isn't exactly *practical*), it will
be discussed by anyone who cares to. The Committee, however, aren't
making anyone do anything with the group. All legacy groups without
charters have been allowed to stay without them, if they choose.
If you wish people to "go away", you may care to address the proponent
instead. It is the proponent, and only the proponent, who has brought
this forward.
--
James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c.
PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti
John Hawkes-Reed
>
> Andrew Oakley wrote:
> > No, but if the RFD passes to its eventual conclusion, action would be
> > taken by the UKUC which would affect UPG.
>
> What action do you imagine that the Committee will take?
I have no idea. What action *would* The Committee take?
> The newsgroup was created by the Demon Newsmaster. Demon was at the time
> the group was created the controlling authority for the Group. Demon
> was one of the ISPs whichg entered into an agreement to establish the
> committee and which vested its control over newsgroups in the committee.
For reasons of Historical Wossname, I've had a half-decent Google -
there's a dirty great hole in alt.gothic where one would expect some
chat about the formation of upg to be. If anyone's got a URL which
points to same, I'd be fascinated. I find it hard to believe that
news@demon decided to create the thing on a whim while guzzling the
first coffee of the day. Mind you, stranger things have happened.
> The committee is the controlling authority for uk.people.gothic in
> proper
> sucession to Demon Internet.
Inasmuch as anyone has any particular control over the doings of The
Usenet...
[ ... ]
> > There is a charter available for UPG and it was formally adopted in
> > 1995 using the formal standards of the time.
>
> I'm unsure what formal standards existed or were used. The committee
> regards the existence of a charter in the creation message as the only
> evidence of formal adoption before the committee existed.
Again, I think it's unfortunate that The Newgroup Message seems to exist
in a vacuum.
> > It just so happens that the formal adoption standards of the time
> > predated the creation of UKUC and therefore do not meet (and, without
> > time travel, could NEVER HAVE met) with what UKUC currently considers
> > to be formal adoption standards.
>
> Other groups from that time had such a charter.
Because there was one in the newgroup? Or documented elsewhere?
[ ... ]
> Whether you like it or not, it is the case. If somebody RFDed removal
> of uk.people.gothic, and it passed a vote, con...@usenet.org.uk
> would issue control messages to remove the group.
Apropos nothing, under what remarkable circumstance would we manage to
reach that end?
[ ... ]
> So, vote against the RFD in which the readers of upg are being asked for
> their views!
Indeed so.
> The committee *IS* the authority in respect of creation removal and
> rechartering of ALL uk.* groups.
>
> It is the competent authority in respect of OFFICIAL charters.
>
> Nothing in the above prevents the users of a group from adopting
> some unofficial charter which differs from that on the usenet.org.uk
> website.
Excellent! I propose the unofficial charter be changed to the word
'Fnord' repeated 23 times and the one-line description be 'Trendy gothic
barbie dolls in black'
(Since, looking at the newgroup data from ftp.isc.org, changing the
one-liner randomly appears to be a tradition:
[Original: uk.people.gothic Gothic culture, music, fashion and
events in the UK.
Booster from control@usenet: uk.people.gothic Discussion about
issues relating to Gothic Culture.])
[ ... ]
> > That said, if this RFD means that UK Usenet Committee will be
> > magnanamous enough to admit that their information is factually wrong,
> > I would support this RFD's actions in correcting it, provided that, in
> > doing so, it does not suggest that the UKUC are any kind of authority
> > regarding uk.people.gothic .
>
> I think that an RFD which removes any element of doubt is a good thing.
Absolutely.
> The committee is the controlling authority for uk.*, resultant from
> Demon handing control to us (a process which began BEFORE upg was
> created)
Inasmuch as anyone has... etc.
--
JH-R
James Coupe
<jk...@hplb.hpl.hp.com> writes:
>> > No, but if the RFD passes to its eventual conclusion, action would be
>> > taken by the UKUC which would affect UPG.
>>
>> What action do you imagine that the Committee will take?
>
>I have no idea. What action *would* The Committee take?
What action is there for them to take?
If the RFD passes, the group gets a charter. If not, it doesn't.
That's how it works.
Please, can people actually stop and think for a second and get rid of
the spooky superstitious paranoia. The Committee aren't about to do
anything with the group. And if the RFD passes, it gets a charter.
That's all.
Loki
"Andrew Oakley>
.
>
> uk.people.gothic has always administered itself. Quietly. Without
> fuss.
Quite right as Nem said "if it ain't broke don't fix it"
Tal
>hint at that kind of attitude lurking in the background. There's no need
>to turn this into a upg v the committee argument; the only real
>questions are a) whether you want to formalise the charter situation and
>b) whether the proposed wording is acceptable for that purpose.
What I'm trying to get my head round is why anyone _cares_ about
something which (IMHO) is so petty to begin with. We've got a charter.
It works. It doesn't get in anyone's way and it doesn't threaten to
bring down Usenet in a heap, so what's the problem?
_I_ was under the impression that the internet was in many respects a
huge step forward in freedoms, and I am seriously worried that a
debate of this sort, which I see (no offence) as petty beurocracy, is
even happening. I would have hoped that people would have a more
liberal attitude to it round here given how much of that cr*p we all
have to put up with IRL.
The polite, if not adult, thing to do would be for the entry at
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.people.gothic.html to be amended to say
that we _do_ have a charter, but it doesn't follow whatever particular
standardisation the committee would prefer since the ng predates the
committee. Why is that a problem?
--
Tal
Commander, 101st Heavy Perking Squad
Lexgoff Mobile Infantry
"We're mobile! We're infantile!"
Dave Mayall
>
> Dave Mayall <da...@research-group.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3C6A553D...@research-group.co.uk>...
> > The committee *IS* the definitive authority for all uk.* groups.
>
> The committee is nothing more than a bunch of self-appointed
> busybodies who have managed to gain some support from ISPs soley on
> the ground that the UKUC makes more noise than anybody else.
The committee was created by the ISPs.
> uk.people.gothic has always administered itself. Quietly. Without
> fuss.
>
> We don't need your new club. Please go away.
The upg may predate the committee. It does not however predate the
announcement from Pipex, Demon and EUnetGB which set in train the
formation of the committee (and its predecessor, newsccord)
> > Demon Internet who were originaly the authority transferred their
> > rights to the committee.
>
> See my previous reply regarding the total lack of Demon's "authority".
Sorry, I don't accept your argument.
The control message creating the newsgroup was NOT issued by somebody
from a private address. It was issued by "newsm...@demon.net"
> > Whether you like it or not, it is the case. If somebody RFDed removal
> > of uk.people.gothic, and it passed a vote, con...@usenet.org.uk
> > would issue control messages to remove the group.
>
> Imagine this:
>
> It is eight years ago. The world is an anarchy. Anyone can do
> anything.
They are permitted to do anything by the people who actually
run the place (because it isn't truly anarchy)
> You've been happily living in your friends' house for some time.
> Eventually you and some of your mates decide to build your own house.
> Once built, you never go out of your house, because it is anarchy out
> there. You and your house mates have organised everything inside your
> house. You're quite happy in your house.
Which was erected by one of the people who was actually in charge
of what you wrongly thought was an anarchy. You may have furnished it,
but they erected it.
> Meanwhile, unbeknownst to you, a new club is started up. They start
> forming a tin-pot government run from a new clubhouse they've built up
> the road.
Actually, the 3 people who all used to run their own versions of the
world and allow everybody to think it was an anarchy signed a treaty
handing over power to this new government, which was much admired by
other govenments.
> No-one has come round and asked if you want this government. Nobody in
> your house is even aware of this new government, because nobody in
> your house goes out of the house, let alone into the new clubhouse.
Which is fine, because the new government doesn't really care what
goes on at your house.
> When you built the house, you painted your bedroom blue, but the
> tin-pot government, who've never visited your house, have official
> records that say that your bedroom isn't painted at all.
Or rather they say that they haven't got a clue what colour your
bedroom is because the records don't show that information.
> Since you don't know much about the tin-pot government, you don't
> really care what their records say.
Which is fair enough.
> Then one of your house mates mentions to the tin-pot government that
> their records need correcting.
Very sensible, after all, you want the government guide to the world
to give due recognition to the colour of your bedroom.
> The tin-pot government representative then comes round to your house
> and asks you to fill out a zillion forms in order to apply for a
> bedroom paint colour change permit.
They ask you to get all your housemates to confirm the colour
of the walls.
> You tell them to that you're not really interested in filling out
> their forms, but if they'd like to pop inside the house, they will
> discover that your bedroom is indeed painted blue, so they are welcome
> to correct their records.
Unfortunately, being such an old house, and with there being so many
housemates some of whome might have a different name for this particular
shade of blue, the government thinks it really would be better if the
people who live there express an opinion on the colour themselves.
> Finally, one of the tin-pot councillors says, in a very threatening
> tone, that he has the power to demolish your house.
Only because it is true. It isn't a threat, merely a statement of fact.
> Would you start filling out the forms, or would you tell them to sod
> off?
Depends if you want to be included in the government "bedroom wall
colour
guide" doesn't it?
> > Nothing in the above prevents the users of a group from adopting
> > some unofficial charter which differs from that on the usenet.org.uk
> > website.
>
> We already have an official charter using our official rules, offical
> traditions and offical customs. We have had our own polls controlled
> by an independent vote-taker. We have had FAQ editorial meetings. We
> have created procedures and carried through motions. We even have our
> own spam & troll police force. All these official customs were in
> place before your little club was even born.
>
> Our official rules, official traditions and official customs just
> don't equate with yours. That doesn't mean that our official rules
> aren't official. It just means they don't match yours.
what makes your procedures etc "official"? They are merely inventions
of your own as to how you will do things. Our rules are official,
because
we have the sanction of the people who actually OWN the world.
> Stop calling our charter "unofficial", it is highly patronising,
> offensive and provocative.
And accurate.
> > I think that an RFD which removes any element of doubt is a good thing.
>
> I think that an RFD which forces the UKUC to correct their false
> information is a good thing.
Correction of false information requires no RFD.
Your seething indignation that the committee exists doesn't alter the
fact that the committee does exist and does have authority.
Dave Mayall
You could vote the committee out, feel free.
Dave Mayall
>
> Dave Mayall wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Oakley wrote:
>
> > > No, but if the RFD passes to its eventual conclusion, action would be
> > > taken by the UKUC which would affect UPG.
> >
> > What action do you imagine that the Committee will take?
>
> I have no idea. What action *would* The Committee take?
None, which is the point I was trying to convey.
> > The newsgroup was created by the Demon Newsmaster. Demon was at the time
> > the group was created the controlling authority for the Group. Demon
> > was one of the ISPs whichg entered into an agreement to establish the
> > committee and which vested its control over newsgroups in the committee.
>
> For reasons of Historical Wossname, I've had a half-decent Google -
> there's a dirty great hole in alt.gothic where one would expect some
> chat about the formation of upg to be. If anyone's got a URL which
> points to same, I'd be fascinated. I find it hard to believe that
> news@demon decided to create the thing on a whim while guzzling the
> first coffee of the day. Mind you, stranger things have happened.
The why isn't important.
The important fact is that newsm...@demon.net *did* create the group
and that it transferred control to the committee.
> > The committee is the controlling authority for uk.people.gothic in
> > proper
> > sucession to Demon Internet.
>
> Inasmuch as anyone has any particular control over the doings of The
> Usenet...
Indeed.
> > > There is a charter available for UPG and it was formally adopted in
> > > 1995 using the formal standards of the time.
> >
> > I'm unsure what formal standards existed or were used. The committee
> > regards the existence of a charter in the creation message as the only
> > evidence of formal adoption before the committee existed.
>
> Again, I think it's unfortunate that The Newgroup Message seems to exist
> in a vacuum.
It is all that we have to go on.
> > > It just so happens that the formal adoption standards of the time
> > > predated the creation of UKUC and therefore do not meet (and, without
> > > time travel, could NEVER HAVE met) with what UKUC currently considers
> > > to be formal adoption standards.
> >
> > Other groups from that time had such a charter.
>
> Because there was one in the newgroup? Or documented elsewhere?
Because there was one in the newgroup.
> > Whether you like it or not, it is the case. If somebody RFDed removal
> > of uk.people.gothic, and it passed a vote, con...@usenet.org.uk
> > would issue control messages to remove the group.
>
> Apropos nothing, under what remarkable circumstance would we manage to
> reach that end?
If someone RFDed it and removal got 12 votes more than retention. VERY
VERY unlikely, but possible. Or if people decided to have a moderated
group
instead.
> > I think that an RFD which removes any element of doubt is a good thing.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > The committee is the controlling authority for uk.*, resultant from
> > Demon handing control to us (a process which began BEFORE upg was
> > created)
>
> Inasmuch as anyone has... etc.
Yup
James Coupe
<t...@irkar.com> writes:
>What I'm trying to get my head round is why anyone _cares_ about
>something which (IMHO) is so petty to begin with. We've got a charter.
>It works. It doesn't get in anyone's way and it doesn't threaten to
>bring down Usenet in a heap, so what's the problem?
There isn't one.
The proponent brought forward an RFD for an official one. And various
people appear to have been told that if they don't have one, the sky
will fall down.
John Hawkes-Reed
> You could vote the committee out, feel free.
They'd only come and stand outside the upg tin shed and serenade Mr
Oakley in his blue bedroom. Then there'd be altercation and someone
would have to call the police and it would end messily for all
concerned.
--
J 'Going to make Dave H. a news-admin for a bit and see how he likes
it.' H-R
Tal
>There isn't one.
>
>The proponent brought forward an RFD for an official one. And various
>people appear to have been told that if they don't have one, the sky
>will fall down.
Fair enough in that case. I'm all for a debate about it, if that's
what people want to do with their time. It was just that some of the
posts are getting aggresive, if not threatening, and I for one would
rather not see that progress further down that road :)
Mark Goodge
Andrew Oakley wrote:
>
>
> Imagine this:
>
> It is eight years ago. The world is an anarchy. Anyone can do
> anything.
>
> You've been happily living in your friends' house for some time.
> Eventually you and some of your mates decide to build your own house.
> Once built, you never go out of your house, because it is anarchy out
> there. You and your house mates have organised everything inside your
> house. You're quite happy in your house.
Or, try this:
It is eight years ago. Some parts of the world are anarchic, others have
governing bodies, while some are administered by corporations.
You and your friends have been living in a house in one of the anarchic
areas, but decide to build a new house in a newish village in one of the
corporate areas. There are a few other houses there, but not all that
many, and no one group really controls the area. Some of the people
involved in building the new house are aware of the organisation of
their new neighbourhood, and some are probably under the mistaken
impression that it, too, is an anarchy, but most probably just don't
care - all they want is a new house.
Once in your house, you find that you like it and never go out of it.
After all, there's nothing else there to interest you. You're quite
happy in your house.
Meanwhile, in your village, people from all the houses in the area
(including yours, not that you noticed, personally) have started talking
about creating a democratic government to replace the corporate control.
They hold a referendum on this, and it passes. The corporations cede
control, and a new government is created.
When you built the house, you weren't in the telephone directory, on the
electoral roll or listed at the post office, because those things didn't
exist then. Since you don't know about the new government, you don't
care about these things anyway.
Then one of your mates notices that you aren't listed in any of these
things, and decides to do something about it. He presents a formal
motion to the government to have your house included in the official
records. In order to do this, he has to fill in a few forms and make
sure that the information is presented correctly, but it's not a major
hassle. He thinks that by doing this, it will be of benefit to all the
residents of the house.
However, some of the residents disagree. They'd prefer the house to stay
unlisted, as that's the way it's always been. Some of these residents
want it that way because they value the individuality of the house, and
are of the opinion that this is more important than being listed.
Others, though, are opposed to listing because they don't believe the
government has any authority over them. Rather than discuss the matter
calmly with the other residents and the villagers, they make wild claims
of conspiracies and cabals in order to try and intimidate their
housemates into voting against being listed. Fortunately, few people
believe them, but their outspokenness has the effect of damaging not
only their own cause, but also that of the more moderate residents who
want to stay unlisted just because they prefer it that way. As such,
they actually increase the probability that what they to avoid will, in
fact, take place.
....
As I've said before, no-one is forcing you to adopt the new charter. The
group can continue to function peerfectly happily as a legacy group
without needing to change anything. But, by portraying this as a dispute
with the committee, all you're doing is damaging your case and making it
more likely that people will come out in force to vote against you when
the ballot takes place. I don't think upg deserves to suffer as the
result of a few small-minded individuals who mess it up by picking a
fight with the rest of uk.*, but that's what seems to be happening here.
If you care about upg as a group, then vote for or against the charter
proposal on the basis of the facts, not on the basis of someone's
ranting.
Mark
Aidan Skinner
<jk...@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote in <3C6A8EE4...@hplb.hpl.hp.com>:
> points to same, I'd be fascinated. I find it hard to believe that
> news@demon decided to create the thing on a whim while guzzling the
> first coffee of the day. Mind you, stranger things have happened.
I'm bloody positive there was a discussion about upg on The Other
Place. I remember it quite distinctly for the time period... (ie. I
*can* remember it, which is quite distinctly compared to everything
else...)
ISTR Jane/Alice being involved, but I may be imagining it...
- Aidan
--
ai...@velvet.net http://www.velvet.net/~aidan/ aim:aidans42
finger for pgp key fingerprint: |-----------------------------
01AA 1594 2DB0 09E3 B850 | The lurkers support me in
C2D0 9A2C 4CC9 3EC4 75E1 | email
John Hawkes-Reed
> None, which is the point I was trying to convey.
Ah. Very fine.
> > For reasons of Historical Wossname, I've had a half-decent Google -
[ ... ]
> The why isn't important.
In this narrow context, no. Which is why I began the paragraph as I did.
It would be... Enlightening to have some background, though. It was only
seven years ago, after all.
[ ... ]
> > Because there was one in the newgroup? Or documented elsewhere?
>
> Because there was one in the newgroup.
Aha. Ta.
Blame Demon then. Jolly good.
[ ... ]
I feel I'm very much in favour of Leaving Things Alone so everyone
concerned can continue to Not Give a Monkey's and have Better Things To
Do.
--
JH-R
Mark Goodge
Tal wrote:
>
> Mere instants ago, Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> uttered:
>
> >hint at that kind of attitude lurking in the background. There's no need
> >to turn this into a upg v the committee argument; the only real
> >questions are a) whether you want to formalise the charter situation and
> >b) whether the proposed wording is acceptable for that purpose.
>
> What I'm trying to get my head round is why anyone _cares_ about
> something which (IMHO) is so petty to begin with. We've got a charter.
> It works. It doesn't get in anyone's way and it doesn't threaten to
> bring down Usenet in a heap, so what's the problem?
Dunno. There are some small, but tangible, benefits of having a charter
that's formally adopted and listed on the http://www.usenet.org.uk
website, so I can understand why some people think it's worth getting
one set up that can go there. But, equally, it's a relatively trivial
change so there's no need to do so unless it's waht people want to do.
On the other hand, as it is pretty much a piece of administrivia,
there's no need for it to become the subject of such rabid opposition
either. Unless the proposed new charter is actually making new rules -
which it isn't, it's just reformulating those that already exist into a
more standard wording - then no-one stands to lose anything by adopting
it.
> _I_ was under the impression that the internet was in many respects a
> huge step forward in freedoms, and I am seriously worried that a
> debate of this sort, which I see (no offence) as petty beurocracy, is
> even happening. I would have hoped that people would have a more
> liberal attitude to it round here given how much of that cr*p we all
> have to put up with IRL.
>
> The polite, if not adult, thing to do would be for the entry at
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.people.gothic.html to be amended to say
> that we _do_ have a charter, but it doesn't follow whatever particular
> standardisation the committee would prefer since the ng predates the
> committee. Why is that a problem?
That's pretty much what it does say, more or less. You could quibble
about the exact wording of that statement, but IMO that's even more
trivial than opposing the adoption of a formal charter. Either leave it
as it is, or get it formalised - neither of these is any big deal.
Mark
John Hawkes-Reed
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:05:56 +0000, John Hawkes-Reed
> <jk...@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote in <3C6A8EE4...@hplb.hpl.hp.com>:
>
> > points to same, I'd be fascinated. I find it hard to believe that
> > news@demon decided to create the thing on a whim while guzzling the
> > first coffee of the day. Mind you, stranger things have happened.
>
> I'm bloody positive there was a discussion about upg on The Other
> Place. I remember it quite distinctly for the time period... (ie. I
> *can* remember it, which is quite distinctly compared to everything
> else...)
I ought to remember it too, but I clearly don't. I suspect it all
happened in the time period I was off having a life. Such carelessness
will never happen again.
> 01AA 1594 2DB0 09E3 B850 | The lurkers support me in
> C2D0 9A2C 4CC9 3EC4 75E1 | email
I wouldn't say that too loud - someone will believe you.
--
JH-R
Mark Goodge
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <v19l6uommbaldnrg5...@4ax.com>, Tal
> <t...@irkar.com> writes:
> >What I'm trying to get my head round is why anyone _cares_ about
> >something which (IMHO) is so petty to begin with. We've got a charter.
> >It works. It doesn't get in anyone's way and it doesn't threaten to
> >bring down Usenet in a heap, so what's the problem?
>
> There isn't one.
>
> The proponent brought forward an RFD for an official one. And various
> people appear to have been told that if they don't have one, the sky
> will fall down.
Which is, of course, utter bollocks. I would be interested to know who,
in fact, has told the users of upg that all kinds of evil will result
from not having an official charter. I strongly suspect that upg has
been trolled, with unnc as the ultimate target.
Mark
Edward Scissorhands
stuff.co.uk> writes
>However, some of the residents disagree. They'd prefer the house to stay
>unlisted, as that's the way it's always been. Some of these residents
>want it that way because they value the individuality of the house, and
>are of the opinion that this is more important than being listed.
Eh. You're more likely to find the residents of this estate asking for
the house full of people to be removed to make way for a bypass. Bad
analogy. People who willingly, or even aspire, to live in a uniform
housing estate freak me out.
EdwardS
--
Edward Scissorhands - healthy, with plentiful organs! |\ _,,,---,,_
"Ah... Clean, lemony-scented victory!" /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::.
'----''(_/--' `-'\_) Tish
Edward Scissorhands
<ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes
>The proponent brought forward an RFD for an official one. And various
>people appear to have been told that if they don't have one, the sky
>will fall down.
I think it's just a case of people worrying about the 'everything in
it's place' anally-retentive attitude of many newsgroup users. We all
indulge in a little flame now and them, but there are those who make it
their sole reason to be on a group ;)
Generally the inhabitants of u.p.g are intelligent, and capable of
policing themselves and their group, quite adequately without enforced
guidelines. Especially if those guidelines are brewed up by a committee,
and moreso if that committee could potentially be the aforementioned
type of newsgroup user.
As someone else said, why not just put the existing /pre/ guidelines
Charter in place on the website?
Tim Miller
news:v19l6uommbaldnrg5...@4ax.com...
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.people.gothic.html to be amended to say
> that we _do_ have a charter, but it doesn't follow whatever particular
> standardisation the committee would prefer since the ng predates the
> committee. Why is that a problem?
>
If the current proposal fails, then after a period of calm, someone might
want to RFD that change.
Tim (tm)
John Hawkes-Reed
> Which is, of course, utter bollocks. I would be interested to know who,
> in fact, has told the users of upg that all kinds of evil will result
> from not having an official charter. I strongly suspect that upg has
> been trolled, with unnc as the ultimate target.
Folklore.
This is a goth(ic) group for goth(ic) people[1]. We'll have no trollage
here!
--
JH-R
[1] And the large percentage of us who are in it for some of the music
and a lot of the fashion, but can't be bothered with the mithering
around in churchyards.
John Hawkes-Reed
> the house full of people to be removed to make way for a bypass. Bad
> analogy. People who willingly, or even aspire, to live in a uniform
> housing estate freak me out.
Bingo.
*That's* why the ng went off on one.
[And I looked at unnc to see 5k messages, 4k5 of which were complete
arse. To quote my original message 'I'm not going in there without
firearms and air-support']
--
JH-R
Tim Miller
news:3C6AA7B6...@hplb.hpl.hp.com...
>
> [And I looked at unnc to see 5k messages, 4k5 of which were complete
> arse. To quote my original message 'I'm not going in there without
> firearms and air-support']
>
Tim (tm)
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
> For reasons of Historical Wossname, I've had a half-decent Google -
> there's a dirty great hole in alt.gothic where one would expect some
> chat about the formation of upg to be. If anyone's got a URL which
> points to same, I'd be fascinated. I find it hard to believe that
> news@demon decided to create the thing on a whim while guzzling the
> first coffee of the day. Mind you, stranger things have happened.
At
http://www.kinsler.org/paul/goth/stuff.html
I have some of the (not necessarily representative posts) in alt.gothic
when upg was initially (AFAIK) being discussed (c12/4/1995). Of course
there may have been earlier threads discussing the same idea. I just
found them lurking on my HD one day, so why these are there and not
others I do not know. I recall there was about 25 post thread at
most) in alt.gothic, where upon people other than me ran around
with the idea getting support together, and eventually, after some
not inconsiderable time, upg got created. I do recall a long tedious
discussion about uk.people.* hierarchies in some kind of news config
newsgroup. Should we have uk.gothic or uk.people.gothic? It was all
very stimulating, I can tell you.
#Paul
Molly Mockford
<ch...@keristor.org> writes
>On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:06:03 +0000, Pyromancer & Midnight
> <pyrom...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In fact, if we wanted to, we could, by sheer weight of numbers, vote in
>>our present charter, unchanged, as the official one. We don't have to
>>use any particular form of words, though there'd probably be less
>>argument if we just went with the current "standard" one, which is what
>>this RFD appears to be.
>
>Well, you'd have to vote against this RFD and then wait 3 months (unless
>"re-open discussion" is an option) and then raise your own RFD with your
>preferred wording and take it through to a vote, but yes you could do
>that.
Or, much faster than that, raise a 2nd RFD any time now containing two
alternative charters. This does away with the opportunity for a fast-
track, but allows for a vote along the lines of:
Charter A
Charter B
Re-Open Discussion
Status Quo.
Such a vote would be by stating your preferences (1 to 4), not just
picking one option out of the four.
--
Molly
I don't speak for UKVoting. Hey, half the time I don't even speak for myself.
Chris Croughton
<t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <slrna6k9m6...@ccserver.keris.net>, Chris Croughton
><ch...@keristor.org> writes
>>However, I think that the original point was that they are 'young' in
>>Usenet terms, some of them having only used it after net.september.
>
>Some of them may be - but by no means all.
Certainly, which was why I said 'some'. At least one name I remember
as active when I first got net access...
Chris C
Chris Croughton
<Edw...@lovecraft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Generally the inhabitants of u.p.g are intelligent, and capable of
>policing themselves and their group, quite adequately without enforced
>guidelines. Especially if those guidelines are brewed up by a committee,
>and moreso if that committee could potentially be the aforementioned
>type of newsgroup user.
The guidelines (the charter that is) are not brewed up by the committee.
Nor are they enforced in any way (upg being unmoderated, there is no way
to enforce them).
The UK Usenet guidelines also have been voted on (as have all changes to
them) by those who were interested to do so over the last 6 years or so,
not by some small committee. They are there because that's what works
in practice for the formation and removal of groups (rather than the
Big8's near dictatorship or altnet's "anyone can create or delete
anything"). They are there primarily to reassure ISPs and other news
carriers that the groups created are ones which are likely to be used
reasonably, which is why uk.* has such good distribution (and why altnet
and freenet have not such good distribution).
>As someone else said, why not just put the existing /pre/ guidelines
>Charter in place on the website?
Why don't you ask the proponent of the RFD? Until this all blew up, I
thought that's what this RFD was doing (I don't read upg so I haven't
seen your 'unofficial' charter to compare them). I would certainly
agree with you that putting your existing charter in the RFD would be a
sensible action, and should be painless (wait the appropriate period for
any discussion, then fast-track it with no vote needed unless 6 or more
people object).
As for why 'they' can't just put the existing charter on the website,
it's because in the past we have had too many people and groups come up
with an alternative charter and say "no, /ours/ is the definitive
charter". Without a proper procedure, which can be taken to a vote if
necessary, anyone could say "replace it with my version". If the
messages were available from before the formation of upg to show that a
charter had been accepted at that time and should have been posted with
the creation message, this would probably be acceptable, but it seems
that all that's available is hearsay and rumours. Which is a pity...
Chris C
Giolla Decair
<3C6A4CA9...@research-group.co.uk> saying:
> Andrew Oakley wrote:
>> As part of official Demon Internet business, or because one of the
>> disaffected breakaway Brit goths on alt.gothic happened to work at
>> Demon Internet and arranged for the uk.people.gothic creation message
>> to be issued off his own (no pun intended) bat?
> He issued the control message as newsm...@demon.net, so he was
> purporting to be acting in an official capacity.
Snigger, and can I also say chortle.
Hmmm, 1995 and something posted from a demon.net is beign held as
being official merely by dint of it being from a demon.net address.
Oh dear, oh my aching sides.
If everything done from demon.net was taken as official.. oh dear.
--
Giolla Decair
"But all around the world he's heard it said
That the raven is stronger than the dove"
- The Raven/The whiskey priests
Dave Williams
: Snigger, and can I also say chortle.
You can if you like.
: Hmmm, 1995 and something posted from a demon.net is beign held as
: being official merely by dint of it being from a demon.net address.
Um. Hardly - but we could discuss the difference between something
done with a person-style email address and a role-account-style
email address if you like - after all I don't remember you doing
anything 'personal' using the abuse role address.
Not that it matters - this is a daft argument anyway. There is no
way that Demon would ever have regarded itself as 'in control' or
uk.people.gothic or any uk.* group content and charter-wise.
Dave
Chris Croughton
<nos...@mockfords.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>Or, much faster than that, raise a 2nd RFD any time now containing two
>alternative charters. This does away with the opportunity for a fast-
>track, but allows for a vote along the lines of:
Er, surely only the proponent can do that? Or was Pyromancer the
propoent? (It didn't sound like it from the way it was phrased, to me
anyway.)
>Charter A
>Charter B
>Re-Open Discussion
>Status Quo.
>
>Such a vote would be by stating your preferences (1 to 4), not just
>picking one option out of the four.
Oh, indeed, and if the proponent wishes to do that it might be the
cleanest way. I think that will preclude a fast-track, though, if I
read the Guidelines correctly.
Chris C
Graham Drabble
news:slrna6lvhe...@ccserver.keris.net:
Fast tracks have been allowed from multi-option RFDs if one option has
a clear majority favouring it. The rename of uk.local.essex to
uk.local.essx is the most recent example.
--
Graham Drabble
If you're interested in what goes on in other groups or want to find
an interesting group to read then check news.groups.reviews for what
others have to say or contribute a review for others to read.
Molly Mockford
<ch...@keristor.org> writes
>On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:56:57 +0000, Molly Mockford
> <nos...@mockfords.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Or, much faster than that, raise a 2nd RFD any time now containing two
>>alternative charters. This does away with the opportunity for a fast-
>>track, but allows for a vote along the lines of:
>
>Er, surely only the proponent can do that? Or was Pyromancer the
>propoent? (It didn't sound like it from the way it was phrased, to me
>anyway.)
No, I intended it as general information, not specifically directed
towards Pyromancer (or, of course, to you!).
>Oh, indeed, and if the proponent wishes to do that it might be the
>cleanest way. I think that will preclude a fast-track, though, if I
>read the Guidelines correctly.
Which is why I said above:
>This does away with the opportunity for a fast-
>track, but allows for a vote along the lines of:
It's getting late :-)
Pyromancer & Midnight
Once upon a time, Dave Mayall <da...@research-group.co.uk> wrote:
>Your seething indignation that the committee exists doesn't alter the
>fact that the committee does exist and does have authority.
<FX: Pokes head above bar, cautiously, slides half-drunk glass of
absinthe out of the way>
Um, Dave? I always thought our (the Committee's) only real authority
was in the sensible naming of new groups, and rejecting things that
breach the guidelines.
Ok, I note you said "passed a vote" - but any committee (or anyone else)
who seriously tried to rmgroup u.p.g.... <eeek!>
I think the only real problem with this proposal is that the proponent
appears not to have started an informal discussion here on u.p.g first
(though I might have missed it, in which case, apologies!).
Suggest we (u.p.g) use the RFD time to decide what (if anything) we
actually want to happen, and (if a change is wanted) that proponent goes
with that in a 2nd RFD?
--
- Pyromancer & Midnight.
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Goth Rock!
Pyromancer & Midnight
Once upon a time, Edward Scissorhands <Edw...@lovecraft.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>People who willingly, or even aspire, to live in a uniform
>housing estate freak me out.
M: I don't do it willingly, and I've never aspired to, it's as cheap as
it is boring!
- Midnight.
Pyromancer & Midnight
Once upon a time, Molly Mockford <nos...@mockfords.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <slrna6lvhe...@ccserver.keris.net>, Chris Croughton
><ch...@keristor.org> writes
>>On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:56:57 +0000, Molly Mockford
>> <nos...@mockfords.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Or, much faster than that, raise a 2nd RFD any time now containing two
>>>alternative charters. This does away with the opportunity for a fast-
>>>track, but allows for a vote along the lines of:
>>
>>Er, surely only the proponent can do that? Or was Pyromancer the
>>propoent? (It didn't sound like it from the way it was phrased, to me
>>anyway.)
>
>No, I intended it as general information, not specifically directed
>towards Pyromancer (or, of course, to you!).
Understood. And no, I'm not the proponent!
I did think, last year, about putting forward the current FAQ version of
the upg charter in an RFD to make it official, but didn't because:
1. I didn't think I was enough of a regular poster to be messing with
the group's charter.
2. I didn't want to drag the rest of upg into the kind of pedantry that
used to sometimes accompany RFDs using other than the RFDMaker wording.
Pyromancer & Midnight
Once upon a time, Chris Croughton <ch...@keristor.org> wrote:
>I believe that some of them may be (shock, horror!) under 40. Young
>whippersnappers!
<gryn>
>However, I think that the original point was that they are 'young' in
>Usenet terms, some of them having only used it after net.september.
93, wasn't it? I've only been on since 95.
Richard Letts
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:24:25 +0000, Edward Scissorhands
> <Edw...@lovecraft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>As someone else said, why not just put the existing /pre/ guidelines
>>Charter in place on the website?
>
> Why don't you ask the proponent of the RFD? Until this all blew up, I
> thought that's what this RFD was doing (I don't read upg so I haven't
I've long since deleted my archive of control stuff but I thought
uk.people.* came after the committee. Anyway there is nothing which says
pre-comittee groups need to have a charter. The only thing there is that
if they DO want a charter it has to be properly adopted otherwise you
could get into the situation with several people claiming to posess the
ONE TRUE CHARTER and then we have a religious war on our hands...
RjL
+--------------------------+
| ric...@illuin.org | ... and the light of the Lamps of the
+--------------------------+ Valar flowed out over the Earth
Richard Letts
> The committee *IS* the definitive authority for all uk.* groups.
>
> Demon Internet who were originaly the authority transferred their
> rights to the committee.
this isn't right -- it was originally the University of Kent at
Cantebury (sp?) who brought news into this country and diseminated it
though various means including (ugh batch blue-book transfers) mainly to
computer science departments around the country and who also started
ran UUNET(GB) which has since morphed into EUNET and so on.
All of this being about <mumble>10 years</mumble> before the creation of
u.p.g
back in 1995 pretty much anyone could create a newsgroupuk uk.* with the
right magic incantation but since the PGP-signing of group creation
messages the creation of newsgroups has become centralised (with somce
exceptions)
RjL
blue-book into B-News. ugh. the horror. the memories.
ugh.
I need to go lie down
<twitch />
John Hawkes-Reed
>
> John Hawkes-Reed <jk...@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> > For reasons of Historical Wossname, I've had a half-decent Google -
> > there's a dirty great hole in alt.gothic where one would expect some
[ ... ]
> At
>
> http://www.kinsler.org/paul/goth/stuff.html
>
> I have some of the (not necessarily representative posts) in alt.gothic
> when upg was initially (AFAIK) being discussed (c12/4/1995).
[ ... ]
Aha! Excellent stuff. Thanks.
I suspect that didn't make it to Deja/Google because the distribution
was set to UK.
--
JH-R
John Hawkes-Reed
> Once upon a time, Molly Mockford <nos...@mockfords.clara.co.uk> wrote:
[ Re-enactment of a scene or two from Brazil ]
> 2. I didn't want to drag the rest of upg into the kind of pedantry that
> used to sometimes accompany RFDs using other than the RFDMaker wording.
You mean it gets worse?
--
JH-R
Graham Clark
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:47:39 GMT, Andrew Oakley put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >As part of official Demon Internet business, or because one of the
> >disaffected breakaway Brit goths on alt.gothic happened to work at
> >Demon Internet and arranged for the uk.people.gothic creation message
> >to be issued off his own (no pun intended) bat?
>
> There's probably not a huge difference between the two, to be honest.
> That's how most groups got created, in pre-committee days.
The suggestion that Demon therefore "controlled" UPG, or had any sort
of rights over it, doesn't follow from that.
> Demon didn't hand over control of upg per se, they - along with the
> other ISPs - handed over control of uk.*.
Not having "control", they could not have handed it over. We have a
problem here, you see : I would see this committe as being a body
co-ordinating discussions and votes by actual users on the creation
of newsgroups. "Control" of existing or created groups doesn't really
come into it.
> If the users of the legacy groups - including upg - at the time had
> wanted to stay under the old system, they could have voted against the
> creation of the committee.
Voting for the creation of a committee does not necessarily mean
approving of any possible future actions. The document currently listed
describes the remit of the committee as providng "policy leadership" (ugh)
"concerned with issues such as naming, voting and management of the
hierarchy."
This does not, AFAICT, mean that the committee claims "control" over
individual groups under the terms of this document. I don't, therefore,
see that the vote you describe gives any sort of mandate to take such
control.
If the users had in fact voted for this, then you'd be in a better
position. As far as I can tell, this was not what was understood to
be on the table. It certainly wasn't what I personally understood to
be on the table.
G.
--
"As we all know, the English like nothing better than being pegged out on
a croquet lawn by a dirty foreign girl in a riot skirt and bondage boots."
Next Calling : 19th February
12345678902234567890323456789042345678905234567890623456789072345678908234567890