UVV and mentor info request
Robert Ames
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Robert Ames <am...@ican.net> writes:
>
>> Then explain this:
>
>However, after this problem, everyone on group-advice
>started going out of their way to point out that this recommendation was
>optional, since there was some confusion over that.
"Strongly encouraged" doesn't sound like anyone is going out of their way
to point out that the proponent has a choice.
: From: le...@accessone.com (Michael Leary)
: Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:37:59 GMT
: Message-ID: <316c3746...@news.accessone.com>
:
: You can vote on *each item* separately. I included the renaming at the
: suggestion of the mentor group -- who indicated that it was strongly
: encouraged but not required.
Russ, you have a fundamental problem in the mentors group. You let people
pick their assignments. This almost guarantees that they will be biased.
In the case of the present misc.fitness.weights reorg, it is the same
mentor as handled the previous (disastrous) reorg of misc.fitness. What
are the chances of that happening? This person has it in for m.f.weights.
She's called it a "misogynistic locker room". In my opinion, she wants
to split it up into as many little splinters as possible. She did it
before with misc.fitness, and now she's trying again with m.f.weights.
Russ Allbery
> Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> However, after this problem, everyone on group-advice started going out
>> of their way to point out that this recommendation was optional, since
>> there was some confusion over that.
> "Strongly encouraged" doesn't sound like anyone is going out of their way
> to point out that the proponent has a choice.
How's that? Surely something can be strongly encouraged and still be up
to the proponent. We strongly encouraged the rgc.ultima-dragons
proponents to choose a different name too (a *lot* stronger than any .misc
renaming I've ever seen), and they choose not to follow our advice.
The newsgroup went to a vote and passed. Tale wasn't all that happy about
it, but the group was created right on schedule anyway. That's the way
the system works; we all try to persuade each other we're right, and then
we live with the results.
> : From: le...@accessone.com (Michael Leary)
> : Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:37:59 GMT
> : Message-ID: <316c3746...@news.accessone.com>
> :
> : You can vote on *each item* separately. I included the renaming at the
> : suggestion of the mentor group -- who indicated that it was strongly
> : encouraged but not required.
See, the message you're quoting is contradicting your argument. The
proponent was quite obviously aware that the renaming was not required.
> Russ, you have a fundamental problem in the mentors group. You let
> people pick their assignments. This almost guarantees that they will be
> biased.
You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of group-mentors.
If the mentor is biased, that's *GOOD*. They'll be more involved in the
creation process and therefore be of more help! Please listen: Group
Mentors *have no power or official position*. *All* Group Mentors are are
people experienced with the newsgroup creation process who have
volunteered to help other people propose their newsgroups.
What about that description implies neutrality to you? What makes you
think group mentors should be neutral?
If you don't like their advice, ignore it. No one is making you agree
with them.
> In the case of the present misc.fitness.weights reorg, it is the same
> mentor as handled the previous (disastrous) reorg of misc.fitness. What
> are the chances of that happening? This person has it in for
> m.f.weights. She's called it a "misogynistic locker room". In my
> opinion, she wants to split it up into as many little splinters as
> possible. She did it before with misc.fitness, and now she's trying
> again with m.f.weights.
If that's your opinion, then argue against the group on those grounds, and
convince the proponents that you're a better person to listen to than the
mentor. No one is forcing them to listen to anyone; they can make their
own decisions.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Steve Bonine
> Russ, you have a fundamental problem in the mentors group. You let people
> pick their assignments. This almost guarantees that they will be biased.
Robert, you have a fundamental problem in understanding.
Group mentors are SUPPOSED to be biased. The idea is that someone in the group
WHO KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THE GROUP PROPOSAL will volunteer to
help. As Russ pointed out, sometimes the mentor becomes so involved with the
proposal that they become almost a co-proponent. This is *OK*. It's the way
that the system is SUPPOSED TO WORK.
Please do not confuse mentors with the UVV. They are separate entities, do
different things, and use different rules. UVV members don't have an interest
in the proposal, and they have no power over its content; they just collect the
votes.
> In the case of the present misc.fitness.weights reorg, it is the same
> mentor as handled the previous (disastrous) reorg of misc.fitness. What
> are the chances of that happening? This person has it in for m.f.weights.
> She's called it a "misogynistic locker room". In my opinion, she wants
> to split it up into as many little splinters as possible. She did it
> before with misc.fitness, and now she's trying again with m.f.weights.
OK, you don't like a proposal. Vote against it. If it's a bad proposal, it
will fail.
But please don't toss stones at group-mentors, group-advice, and the UVV in
your attempts to defeat a group proposal.
--
Steve Bonine
s...@ntrs.com
Kate Wrightson
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>If the mentor is biased, that's *GOOD*. They'll be more involved in the
>creation process and therefore be of more help! Please listen: Group
>Mentors *have no power or official position*. *All* Group Mentors are are
>people experienced with the newsgroup creation process who have
>volunteered to help other people propose their newsgroups.
>
>What about that description implies neutrality to you? What makes you
>think group mentors should be neutral?
>
>If you don't like their advice, ignore it. No one is making you agree
>with them.
Or consult them. Going to group-mentors is not a required part of the
newsgroup creation process, although we can help.
-kate
--
ka...@rigel.econ.uga.edu kwrig...@cbacc.cc.uga.edu
Administrative Coordinator, Dept. of Economics, University of Georgia
*** Not speaking for the University, the department, or anyone else. ***
Ilana Stern
threads, with the assumption that anyone who's interested is reading
it all. If you don't want to bother with this long article, here's a
summary: Robert Ames is misquoting me and attributing motives to me
which I don't have. He appears to be engaging in a personal vendetta,
for reasons which are not quite clear to me. At first, I thought it
was because of his stated intention to disrupt the m.f.w reorg by
raising procedural issues, since he opposed it. But I have seen recent
articles by him which suggest that he is not completely opposed to all
elements of the reorg, so I don't know why he chooses to slander me
rather than work with the proponent to improve the RFD.
In article <aasexgxy...@ican.net> Robert Ames wrote:
> In the case of the present misc.fitness.weights reorg, it is the same
> mentor as handled the previous (disastrous) reorg of misc.fitness. What
> are the chances of that happening? This person has it in for m.f.weights.
> She's called it a "misogynistic locker room". In my opinion, she wants
> to split it up into as many little splinters as possible. She did it
> before with misc.fitness, and now she's trying again with m.f.weights.
1) It is only his opinion that the previous reorg was "disastrous".
I imagine the readers of misc.fitness.aerobics disagree.
2) Robert Ames is misquoting me. Here is the original text of the article
to which he refers, which is a reply to a question about why few women
read misc.fitness.weights: (Message-ID 315AFC61...@ncar.ucar.edu)
> I agree with the earlier poster who said that there is a lot of
> misogynistic locker-room posing in here, which might be off-putting
> to some women. But I would like to add that whenever I have asked
> a question, I have gotten serious and helpful responses, and that
> whenever I have responded to someone with some advice, it's always
> been appreciated.
3) For the record, I do not want to split m.f.w "into as many little
splinters as possible." The proposed split is the proponent's idea.
I merely helped with the naming and the RFD organization. I have said
that I do support a separate supplements group. From that, to saying
that I "have it in for m.f.weights" and want to splinter it, is a far
reach.
In article <HhNexgxyYk/R09...@ican.net> Robert Ames says:
> This person voted in the previous reorg and has announced an intention
> to vote in this one.
I did vote in the previous reorg. But last week in private email, I told
Robert that I no longer vote on proposals I mentor. Perhaps he is
misinterpreting "support" to mean "intend to vote".
As others have said, there is no policy on group-mentors voting on proposals.
I stopped voting on proposals I mentor because the idea was raised that if
a mentor votes NO, or even if he or she abstains from voting when he or
she has previously voted YES on mentored proposals, the proponent might
think that the mentor deliberately gave bad advice in order to sink the
proposal.
In article <qum3f5w...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU> Russ Allbery says,
quoting Robert Ames:
> > Biased to the point of recommending that what is said in a newsgroup
> > charter doesn't matter -- that it can be deceptive as necessary to get
> > the group passed?
>
> If that's what they said, I disagree with that, and I don't think a mentor
> should have said it. However, since I suspect you're paraphrasing, I'd
> rather read the original to see exactly what they said.
Again, this is something that has already been discussed in private mail
among myself, Ames, David Lawrence, and Jonathan Grobe. Since I explained
then that this was an out of context partial quote, I can only assume that
Ames is again deliberately misquoting me for purposes of discrediting me.
I made no recommendations, and I did not advocate deception. I did say,
in email, that people usually don't read the charter before posting, that
they go by the newsgroup name in deciding what's appropriate. I also
said that in my opinion, a charter that referred to a newsgroup which did
not exist (didn't pass) would not be invalid -- that people would take
reality into account when interpreting it. I also suggested bumping it up
to group-advice, who would know more about what was appropriate. Jonathan
then proposed a way to make the charter wording dependent on the result of
the vote, which I agreed was a better way of solving any potential problems.
Followups to news.groups.
--
/\ Ilana Stern * il...@ncar.ucar.edu * http://www.ucar.edu/dss/ilana.html
\_][ Data Support Section * National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
\__PO Box 3000, Boulder, Colorado 80307 * 303/497-1214 * 303/497-1298 fax
Robert Ames
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Robert Ames <am...@ican.net> writes:
>
>To a large extent, it is the responsibility of the mentor to make that
>clear.
But what if the mentor doesn't make it clear?
>I haven't been following this particular proposal very closely. Do you
>feel that the mentor has not made that clear?
I have today received permission from Bobbie Riviere to quote from email
she sent me a couple of weeks ago. I commend Ms. Riviere on standing by
her words. Recall that Bobbie Riviere was the proponent of the
reorganization of misc.fitness which passed two years ago:
Bobbie Rivere <bob...@pb.net> wrote:
>
>Whoa. I have to disagree. The splitting of mf was great. The
>misc.fitness.misc actually draws from the other two groups as well. The
>problem is that .misc is just sort of a catch-all, But had misc.fitness
>remained as the hierarchy, it would pretty much get no traffic. Right now
>the posters to .misc have also posted to either .aerobics, .weights or both.
>And it covers a wide range of topics. However, where I get violent is when
>the cabal prints that there is no arm-twisting to create .misc as the basic
>hierarchy. You and I both know that's bullshit. My reorg. would never have
>gotten off the ground if I didn't comply with the .misc action.
I think this paragraph speaks for itself.
Robert Ames
Ilana Stern <il...@ncar.ucar.edu> wrote:
> But I have seen recent articles by him which suggest that he is not
> completely opposed to all elements of the reorg, so I don't know why
> he chooses to slander me rather than work with the proponent to
> improve the RFD.
It seems to be you who is intent on slandering me. This has been a
dirty campaign from day #1. With your blessing, I have been called
"stupid", "pathetic", "repulsive", a "liar", and it was implied that
I'm in league with authors of "hacking, bomb making, revenge, armed
robbery, drug manufacturing" literature. From the very beginning,
the proponent has been answering criticism with ad hominem personal
attacks.
Why don't you drop the stealth attack, Ilana? Stop trying to pull
the strings in the background. If you want to destroy
misc.fitness.weights then step up the the rostrum and give your
reasons.
Kenneth Arromdee
Steve Bonine <s...@ntrs.com> wrote:
>Group mentors are SUPPOSED to be biased. The idea is that someone in the group
>WHO KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THE GROUP PROPOSAL will volunteer to
>help. As Russ pointed out, sometimes the mentor becomes so involved with the
>proposal that they become almost a co-proponent. This is *OK*. It's the way
>that the system is SUPPOSED TO WORK.
But there are different kinds of bias.
The kind of bias that would lead someone to phrase suggestions so strongly
that proponents mistakenly believe they are requirements, is undesirable bias
even if some kinds of general "bias" are okay. The "bias" in having opinions
is not the same as the "bias" that misleads as to questions of fact.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Kermit the Pig?!?!?!?!" -- The Muppet Show
Russ Allbery
>> To a large extent, it is the responsibility of the mentor to make that
>> clear.
> But what if the mentor doesn't make it clear?
Then point out the lack of clarity on news.groups and other people will.
Cases like that are a large portion of the reason why I and others read
news.groups in the first place.
>> I haven't been following this particular proposal very closely. Do you
>> feel that the mentor has not made that clear?
> I have today received permission from Bobbie Riviere to quote from email
> she sent me a couple of weeks ago. I commend Ms. Riviere on standing by
> her words. Recall that Bobbie Riviere was the proponent of the
> reorganization of misc.fitness which passed two years ago:
> Bobbie Rivere <bob...@pb.net> wrote:
>> [snip] However, where I get violent is when the cabal prints that there
>> is no arm-twisting to create .misc as the basic hierarchy. You and I
>> both know that's bullshit. My reorg. would never have gotten off the
>> ground if I didn't comply with the .misc action.
> I think this paragraph speaks for itself.
I don't. As I've mentioned before, Ms. Rivere's experiences date from
before there was an explicit change in the way .misc renamings were
discussed. I agree that based on the testimonies of various proponents
the way such renamings were presented to the proponents may well have been
misleading and too strong. Those who have been around long enough to
remember the .misc debates from last summer will remember that I was quite
critical of group-advice on that score.
If you can find a more recent proponent, say from some time after last
September (which was when I joined group-advice) who has similar feelings,
I would be extremely interested.
Shankar Bhattacharyya
[I'm leaving a fair bit of stuff in so I don't alter context]
>I have today received permission from Bobbie Riviere to quote from email
>she sent me a couple of weeks ago. I commend Ms. Riviere on standing by
>her words. Recall that Bobbie Riviere was the proponent of the
>reorganization of misc.fitness which passed two years ago:
>
>Bobbie Rivere <bob...@pb.net> wrote:
>>
>>Whoa. I have to disagree. The splitting of mf was great. The
>>misc.fitness.misc actually draws from the other two groups as well. The
>>problem is that .misc is just sort of a catch-all, But had misc.fitness
>>remained as the hierarchy, it would pretty much get no traffic. Right now
>>the posters to .misc have also posted to either .aerobics, .weights or both.
>>And it covers a wide range of topics. However, where I get violent is when
>>the cabal prints that there is no arm-twisting to create .misc as the basic
>>hierarchy. You and I both know that's bullshit. My reorg. would never have
>>gotten off the ground if I didn't comply with the .misc action.
>I think this paragraph speaks for itself.
That's not necessarily so. Group-advice seems distinctly more relaxed
about misc renamings now than they did last year and even then they
said, quite often, that the renaming was something they recommended
but did not enforce.
I think it is also true that a year ago many of us thought that a
recommendation from group-advice had the force of divine command. I
think people are more relaxed about that, too. I'm not suggesting that
their advice is ill-considered, simply that it is in fact just
advice. Which is what they tell proponents. It is likely that people have
grown more comfortable with the idea that group-advice really means that.
This is not aimed at Bobbie Rivere, who may well be thoroughly
knowledgeable about the nuances of group creation. I intend this more
generally. No patronization of Ms Rivere intended. If Ms Rivere was
not knowledgeable about it before she certainly must be by now. You
learn a lot along the way as you shepherd a proposal along.
I think it is true that proponents can find it hard to figure out what
is required and what is merely recommended, what are rules and what
are guidelines. I don't want to sound elitist about this but that is,
in large part, a proponent's problem. Newsgroup creation is demanding
work. It is not something that naive or suggestible people should do.
I'm not trying to set up a pre-qualifying mechanism for proponents. I
just think that proponents should hang around news.groups for enough
time to understand the process and the pressures. There are all sorts
of pragmatic and political realities involved. If a proponent does
not have a reasonable handle on much of that he or she is likely to
lose teeth in the process.
Should group advice and the mentors try to make that process easier to
handle? Of course, in general terms. But I see no reason why they need
to assume all of the responsibility for the process. It is also a
proponent's responsibility to develop some competence in the process.
I have no opinion on the misc.fitness.weights (?) proposal. Robert Ames
seems to be making a much broader argument and I am responding to that
broader argument.
- Shankar
Steve Bonine
>
> Bobbie Rivere <bob...@pb.net> wrote:
>>
>>... My reorg. would never have
>>gotten off the ground if I didn't comply with the .misc action.
>
> I think this paragraph speaks for itself.
I think you should get some sort of award for being able to ignore facts. If
you simply open your eyes and look at recent votes, you'll see that some of
them do NOT include .misc reorgs. Even if you choose to ignore Russ's clear
statements that the advice is simply advice, the fact that CFVs are being
issued without .misc is what speaks for itself.
I again request that if you have a problem with a proposal, stop trying to
involve group-advice, group-mentors, and the UVV.
--
Steve Bonine
s...@ntrs.com
Ilana Stern
>
> In article <317BD37D...@ncar.ucar.edu>,
> Ilana Stern <il...@ncar.ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> > But I have seen recent articles by him which suggest that he is not
> > completely opposed to all elements of the reorg, so I don't know why
> > he chooses to slander me rather than work with the proponent to
> > improve the RFD.
>
> It seems to be you who is intent on slandering me. This has been a
> dirty campaign from day #1. With your blessing, I have been called
> "stupid", "pathetic", "repulsive", a "liar", and it was implied that
> I'm in league with authors of "hacking, bomb making, revenge, armed
> robbery, drug manufacturing" literature. From the very beginning,
> the proponent has been answering criticism with ad hominem personal
> attacks.
This is not even a misquote, it is a lie. I have already, repeatedly,
in email explained to Robert Ames why this is a lie, so his posting it
in public makes me wonder about his motives.
Once more, with feeling:
I have never called you any of those names (except that you can construe
the above paragraph, I suppose, as calling you a liar; certainly I have
said in previous postings that you have misquoted me and quoted me
out of context, which could be considered lying). I have never said
that you are in league blah blah blah. I challenge you to post any
such verifiable quote from me.
Neither have I "blessed" or in any way condoned any ad hominem personal
attacks by the proponent, and I challenge you to post any such verifiable
quote from me. (I am not disputing that the proponent may have made
such attacks, however I have not been following the discussion, so
I can neither verify nor deny this. I am objecting to Robert Ames's
repeated insistence that I am responsible for these alleged attacks.)
The mentor's job ends with the official posting of the RFD, unless the
proponent addresses further questions to the mentor (for example, asking
for help in filling out the UVV questionnaire). I am in no way responsible
or involved in anything the proponent has said on Usenet or in email
regarding this proposal. I consider your repeated insistence that I
am, to be slander. If you have a problem with the proponent's behavior
or language, take it up with him, not with me.
> Why don't you drop the stealth attack, Ilana? Stop trying to pull
> the strings in the background. If you want to destroy
> misc.fitness.weights then step up the the rostrum and give your
> reasons.
I challenge you again to produce any verifiable evidence that I am
engaged in a "stealth attack" or that I want to "destroy misc.fitness.weights."
I read and post to misc.fitness.weights. I did not originate this
proposal. I assisted the proponent in writing the RFD because I assisted
the proponent of the previous split. I do not believe that splits
necessarily destroy groups.
And something you seem to be ignoring, despite many posts from others,
is that I am not required to hold no opinion on the proposal.
On the contrary, it is you who appear to be involved in a "stealth
attack", based on article <T8gaxgxy...@ican.net>:
> HOW TO DEFEAT THE PROPOSED NEWSGROUP REORGANIZATION
>
> I disagree with the proposed newsgroup reorganization for reasons I'll
> post seperately. Basically, I just think it's too ambitious.
[deletia where he explains how to vote NO on one or more parts. I am
deleting this because I consider this portion of the article to be perfectly
valid campaigning and have no quarrel with it.]
> There is another way to stop this reorg, and that is at the discussion
> stage. There are procedural objections which can be made. For
> example, why should the proposed "supplements" group be in the
> "weights" hierarchy? Don't aerobics enthusiasts and others take
> supplements? Would it not be better named "misc.fitness.supplements"?
>
> Or take the proposed powerlifting group. Isn't powerlifting a sport?
> Shouldn't it be under the "rec.sport" hierarchy, if it is a sport?
> Or again for the "supplements" group: are the people proposing the new
> group intending to post there? Is there any evidence that these
> people have EVER, EVEN ONCE posted on the subject of "supplements"?
>
> Procedural arguments like this, when presented to neutral third
> parties, can effectively derail a proposal.
This is why I believe that Robert Ames's continued and repeated attempts
to malign my character are simply an attempt to "derail" the proposal
on procedural grounds. While it is perfectly valid to bring up naming
and charter issues during the RFD in order to amend the RFD to something
that more accurately represents all interested parties (that's what the
RFD period is for), it is contrary to the spirit of the guidelines to
attempt to subvert the process by raising irrelevant and mean-spirited
objections. You are only hurting the cause you wish to help.
Robert, you are welcome to oppose the reorg proposal on its own merits
(or lack thereof). You are welcome to vote NO on any or all elements.
You are especially invited to discuss proposed amendments with the proponent,
or, if the two of you can't talk civilly, via a neutral intermediary. But
I ask you again to stop accusing me of motives which I do not have, of
misdeeds which I have not done, and of language which I have not used.
Robert Ames
Ilana Stern <il...@ncar.ucar.edu> wrote:
>Robert Ames wrote:
>>
>> It seems to be you who is intent on slandering me. This has been a
>> dirty campaign from day #1. With your blessing, I have been called
>> "stupid", "pathetic", "repulsive", a "liar", and it was implied that
>> I'm in league with authors of "hacking, bomb making, revenge, armed
>> robbery, drug manufacturing" literature. From the very beginning,
>> the proponent has been answering criticism with ad hominem personal
>> attacks.
>
>This is not even a misquote, it is a lie. I have already, repeatedly,
>in email explained to Robert Ames why this is a lie, so his posting it
>in public makes me wonder about his motives.
:From: le...@accessone.com (Michael Leary)
:Subject: Re: RFD: misc.fitness.weights.* reorganization
:Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:47:43 GMT
:Message-ID: <316bbe17...@news.accessone.com>
:
:I sure hope you have better reasons than that. Railing against ambition is
:pretty pathetic and repulsive.
:
:Reminds me of the books I come across related to hacking, bomb making,
:revenge, armed robbery, drug manufacturing, etc -- kind of interesting
:info, but nothing I have any reason to use.
There's one example, Ilana. Now who's the liar?
>But I ask you again to stop accusing me of motives which I do not
>have, of misdeeds which I have not done, and of language which I
>have not used.
In your own words:
:From: Ilana Stern <il...@ncar.ucar.edu>
:Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:09:29 -0600
:Message-ID: <317BD969...@ncar.ucar.edu>
:
:Robert is correct in saying that mentors pushed the .misc renaming
:on proponents, at least for proposals during the early days of
:group-mentors. Part of this is because group-advice routinely
:bounced misc-less proposals. It wasn't until there was widespread
:dissatisfaction with miscifying, and lots of articles in news.groups
:about it, that group-advice backed off somewhat (I may be incorrect
:in referring to group-advice as a unit, it might have been just
:David that was advocating it) and the mentors discovered that
:miscless proposals were possible.
Russ Allbery
>> Robert Ames wrote:
>>> It seems to be you who is intent on slandering me. This has been a
>>> dirty campaign from day #1. With your blessing, I have been called
>>> "stupid", "pathetic", "repulsive", a "liar", and it was implied that
>>> I'm in league with authors of "hacking, bomb making, revenge, armed
>>> robbery, drug manufacturing" literature. [snip]
>> This is not even a misquote, it is a lie. [snip]
> :From: le...@accessone.com (Michael Leary)
Notice the From: line? It's not from Ilana Stern. It doesn't quote Ilana
Stern. It therefore proves exactly nothing.
Colin Douthwaite
>In article <UHBfxgxy...@ican.net>, am...@ican.net (Robert Ames) writes:
>>
>> Bobbie Rivere <bob...@pb.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>... My reorg. would never have
>>>gotten off the ground if I didn't comply with the .misc action.
>>
>> I think this paragraph speaks for itself.
>I think you should get some sort of award for being able to ignore facts.
Hmm...perhaps you merit one of those awards too ?
Although Robert Ames may have missed the postings you must certainly
have seen at least seven RFD proponents, including Bobby Rivere,
claim during the middle of 1995 that they were under the definite
impression that the *.misc renaming had to be included in the RFD if
the RFD was to be issued. There were some quite fierce exchanges
over this and they occurred whilst the acrimonious sci.chem renaming
debate was in progress when the sci.chemists were being told they
would be pressurised to rename to *.misc until they complied.
( BTW the sci.chemists rejected the renaming.)
> If you simply open your eyes and look at recent votes,
> you'll see that some of them do NOT include .misc reorgs.
This does not mean that the *.misc policy is still not being
strongly advised as desirable. The 1995 furore did produce a very
slight relaxation in the *.misc policy and that is why "some of
them" do indeed not include the *.misc groups...but "some of them"
still _do_ include the *.misc renaming and the propaganda for *.misc
continues ( see Jonathan Kamen's misc.forsale.computers.handhelds.misc
arguments and rationales. )
> Even if you choose to ignore Russ's clear statements that the
> advice is simply advice, the fact that CFVs are being issued
> without .misc is what speaks for itself.
No it does not speak for itself.
It in no way dismisses the fact that group-advice and group-mentors
are still strongly recommending/advising the *.misc to RFD
authors/proponents who seek their advice and the newsgroup
readerships are not privy to this private advice...it only becomes
evident to the newsgroup readerships when the RFD suddenly appears
and the RFD author has included the *.misc renaming " on the advice
of group-mentors or group-advice ". Yes...we have been told that
some RFD authors never contact mentors/advisers but we are
addressing the case of authors who do seek some advice or are
privately contacted by mentors/advisers.
By the time the RFD is issued, although theoretically the *.misc can
still be removed and/or omitted from a 2nd RFD and CFV this very
seldom happens because the pro-Miscists then insist on the renaming
going to a vote and the RFD author refuses to remove the *.misc
renaming clause.
> I again request that if you have a problem with a proposal, stop
> trying to involve group-advice, group-mentors, and the UVV.
If there are objections to an RFD proposal including a *.misc
renaming and that renaming has been advised by a mentor/adviser
without readership scrutiny the readership has every right to
involve and challenge those mentors/advisers responsible for the
advice...although it is true that the final and total responsibility
does rest with the RFD author.
Unfortunately the pressure of the "advice" together with the desire
to get their RFD approved seems to persuade the RFD author to
include the *.misc and make the weak excuse to the newsgroup
readerships that the vote will stop the renaming...it has been
repeatedly seen that...mainly due to the "news.groups only" RFD
discussion policy...the *.misc renaming succeeds.
In a nutshell group mentors/advice still advise the *.misc inclusion
in private to RFD authors and then opponents cannot get it removed
after the RFD is issued...it's a double whammy !
BTW Steve...why are you SHOUTING so much in your posts ? We aren't
deaf to your arguments, just disagreeable. :-)
Bye,
t.r.mcloughlin
> Robert Ames <am...@ican.net> writes:
> > Ilana Stern <il...@ncar.ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> Robert Ames wrote:
>
> >>> It seems to be you who is intent on slandering me. This has been a
> >>> dirty campaign from day #1. With your blessing, I have been called
>
> >> This is not even a misquote, it is a lie. [snip]
>
> > :From: le...@accessone.com (Michael Leary)
>
> Notice the From: line? It's not from Ilana Stern. It doesn't quote Ilana
> Stern. It therefore proves exactly nothing.
On the contrary, I think it proves something. This whole thread reminds
me of a sixth-grade playgound. I think Robert has a crush on Ilana.
trm
Simon Lyall
Robert Ames (am...@ican.net) wrote:
>I have today received permission from Bobbie Riviere to quote from email
>she sent me a couple of weeks ago. I commend Ms. Riviere on standing by
>her words. Recall that Bobbie Riviere was the proponent of the
>reorganization of misc.fitness which passed two years ago:
>Bobbie Rivere <bob...@pb.net> wrote:
>>Whoa. I have to disagree. The splitting of mf was great. The
>>misc.fitness.misc actually draws from the other two groups as well. The
>>problem is that .misc is just sort of a catch-all, But had misc.fitness
>>remained as the hierarchy, it would pretty much get no traffic. Right now
>>the posters to .misc have also posted to either .aerobics, .weights or both.
>>And it covers a wide range of topics. However, where I get violent is when
>>the cabal prints that there is no arm-twisting to create .misc as the basic
>>hierarchy. You and I both know that's bullshit. My reorg. would never have
>>gotten off the ground if I didn't comply with the .misc action.
>I think this paragraph speaks for itself.
What is says is that someone got confused somewhere. There would have
been no problem in creating misc.fitness.aerobics and
misc.fitness.weights as long as misc.fitness did not remain. The was no
need to create misc.fitness.misc as long as misc.fitness was removed.
The idea of the misc naming "policy" is to avoid groups that are both
newsgroups and have other hanging off them.
*If* what you person says is true and that the m.f.misc group is
essentially junk since the other two groups completely cover the fitness
topic what should have happened was that misc.fitness should have been
renamed to misc.fitness.aerobics and misc.fitness.weights should have
been created.
See the rec.sport.rugby split.
--
Simon J. Lyall. | Busy | Email - si...@darkmere.gen.nz
"Inside me Im Screaming, Nobody pays any attention. " | MT.
Dave Hayes
Ilana Stern <il...@ncar.ucar.edu> writes:
>While it is perfectly valid to bring up naming
>and charter issues during the RFD in order to amend the RFD to something
>that more accurately represents all interested parties (that's what the
>RFD period is for), it is contrary to the spirit of the guidelines to
>attempt to subvert the process by raising irrelevant and mean-spirited
>objections.
Point of order. Not that either side is right or wrong, but you cannot
know or define or validate what "the spirit of the guidelines"
is. Such vague criteria make you seem to be clubbing someone with the
authority of some undefined consensus.
We now return you to your argument, in progress.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Where drums beat, laws are silent.
Ilana Stern
Simon Lyall wrote:
> What is says is that someone got confused somewhere. There would have
> been no problem in creating misc.fitness.aerobics and
> misc.fitness.weights as long as misc.fitness did not remain. The was no
> need to create misc.fitness.misc as long as misc.fitness was removed.
[deletia]
> *If* what you person says is true and that the m.f.misc group is
> essentially junk since the other two groups completely cover the fitness
> topic what should have happened was that misc.fitness should have been
> renamed to misc.fitness.aerobics and misc.fitness.weights should have
> been created.
You might have missed my previous article in which I explained that
this was actually the original split suggested by Bobbie. However,
group-advice bounced this back to us, saying that there are topics
which are neither weights nor aerobics (nutrition, sports injuries,
weight-loss programs, etc.) which would need to have a place. They
recommended misc.fitness.misc as a name.
By the way, I don't agree that m.f.misc is "essentially junk", although
it could definitely be better. An example of a truly junky useless
misc group is rec.travel.misc.
> See the rec.sport.rugby split.
Which I would like to point out I was the mentor of as well! Here
there was a clear case that a split into r.s.rugby.union and
r.s.rugby.league encompassed the entirety of the rugby world, so to
speak.
[posted and mailed]
Colin Douthwaite
Shankar Bhattacharyya (sbha...@styx.ios.com) wrote:
>In article <UHBfxgxy...@ican.net>, Robert Ames <am...@ican.net> wrote:
>
>[I'm leaving a fair bit of stuff in so I don't alter context]
>
>>she sent me a couple of weeks ago. I commend Ms. Riviere on standing by
>>her words. Recall that Bobbie Riviere was the proponent of the
>>reorganization of misc.fitness which passed two years ago:
>>
>>Bobbie Rivere <bob...@pb.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Whoa. I have to disagree. The splitting of mf was great. The
>>>misc.fitness.misc actually draws from the other two groups as well. The
>>>problem is that .misc is just sort of a catch-all, But had misc.fitness
>>>remained as the hierarchy, it would pretty much get no traffic. Right now
>>>the posters to .misc have also posted to either .aerobics, .weights or both.
>>>And it covers a wide range of topics. However, where I get violent is when
>>>the cabal prints that there is no arm-twisting to create .misc as the basic
>>>hierarchy. You and I both know that's bullshit. My reorg. would never have
>>>gotten off the ground if I didn't comply with the .misc action.
>
>>I think this paragraph speaks for itself.
>That's not necessarily so. Group-advice seems distinctly more relaxed
>about misc renamings now than they did last year and even then they
>said, quite often, that the renaming was something they recommended
>but did not enforce.
>
>I think it is also true that a year ago many of us thought that a
>recommendation from group-advice had the force of divine command. I
>think people are more relaxed about that, too. I'm not suggesting that
>their advice is ill-considered, simply that it is in fact just
>advice. Which is what they tell proponents. It is likely that people have
>grown more comfortable with the idea that group-advice really means that.
Nice thoughts and warm fuzzies...but unfortunately seriously
diminished by statements like the following:
> No one. Both Group Advice and Group Mentors have been
> recommending that a reorganization and renaming be part of a new
> group proposal that creates a new hierarchy, but if the proponent
> refuses, the proponent refuses. It's their choice. Most of us
> simply think it's a good idea. ^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you still have "most" group-advisers/mentors/votetakers thinking
renaming is a good idea then the strong influence on RFD/CFV authors
remains despite the palliative clauses now included in their advice
to those RFD/CFV authors who seek their help, or who are contacted
by them at some stage in the course of the group creation process.
Bye,
Dave Hayes
ka...@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Kate Wrightson) writes:
>Or consult them. Going to group-mentors is not a required part of the
>newsgroup creation process, although we can help.
That's not the impression most people have. Especially when poorly
formatted RFDs end up in Tale's mailbox.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
To test that which has been tested is ignorance.
To try to test something without the means of testing is even worse
George Herbert
Dave Hayes <da...@kachina.jetcafe.org> wrote:
>ka...@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Kate Wrightson) writes:
>>Or consult them. Going to group-mentors is not a required part of the
>>newsgroup creation process, although we can help.
>
>That's not the impression most people have. Especially when poorly
>formatted RFDs end up in Tale's mailbox.
If it's too poorly formatted to be posted, the logical step for Tale
is to point them towards group-mentors for help. They need someone who
knows what to do to get it right; group-mentors is there for that purpose,
why not?
If you can hack doing it right on your own (which is not that difficult,
if you go back and read archives of RFDs etc) then there is no real
need for a mentor. If you can't, then you either need a group-mentors
mentor or a seperate volounteer mentor to help.
-george