Note to lurkers - uk.b.t is likely to disappear unless...
Simon Reed
newsgroup are genuine. I was misled by the 'Dr Death' name of the
original into thinking it was a hoax. It is not. The name is more to
do with the sense of humour of the person making the suggestion.
It doesn't help that some people never saw the 2nd RFD. ( I cannot
download it from my Demon server using Turnpike - I only found out it
existed when someone replied to it elsewhere. I had to search for it in
Google by message id which was this
<rfd2-uk.business.telework-remove-20050417075225$7b...@gradwell.net> )
I am one of those people who believes the long, hard, slow slog of
changing public, government and business opinion about telework is a
battle worth having. The personal, health, wealth, social, commercial
and environmental benefits are immense. Volunteering to moderate this
newsgroup was my contribution to that battle. I have been one of the
moderators of this newsgroup for the last four years.
[ I reckon in that time I have probably checked for messages to approve
or reject over 4,000 times with about 60,000 spam or inappropriate
messages being rejected. And I am only one of the volunteer moderators.
And I only see what the robo-moderator doesn't bounce automatically.]
However, the very low volume of postings to this newsgroup has come to
the attention of those who own the uk.* structure and as such they want
it removed.
If nobody objects, this newsgroup will be removed. If it is removed, it
is highly unlikely a UK based newsgroup on teleworking will ever be
permitted to be created again.
Although there is the alt.support.telecommute newsgroup, that is swamped
by the 'work from home scams' that this newsgroup forbids.
So, do you want to see this newsgroup removed or kept in place? If you
have an opinion, please go to uk.net.news.announce and participate in
the discussion. Alternatively, just use this newsgroup - post an on-
topic question or an opinion.
On 28th April 2005 there is likely to be a call for votes on the subject
in uk.net.news.announce There is already a hard core of people who
think this newsgroup should be removed on principle.
I believe it should remain on principle. What do you think?
Reply in uk.business.telework or in uk.net.news.announce
Please reply even if it just "I've been lurking for years just in case
and wouldn't like to lose the group"
If you are a member of The Telework Association I'd especially like to
hear from you.
--
Simon Reed, ukbt<at>sandj.demon.co.uk or use the 'Reply-To' address.
A volunteer moderator (AKA "another net nannie in a petticoat") of
uk.business.telework And no, of course I've got nothing better to do.
Chris Croughton
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:03:36 +Z, Simon Reed
<Spam...@sandj.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> However, the very low volume of postings to this newsgroup has come to
> the attention of those who own the uk.* structure and as such they want
> it removed.
"Those who care about the uk.* structure". No one 'owns' it.
> If nobody objects, this newsgroup will be removed. If it is removed, it
> is highly unlikely a UK based newsgroup on teleworking will ever be
> permitted to be created again.
Untrue. After 90 days an RFD could be raised to re-create it, but it
would need to show a substantial support. If it is true that very few
people are interested in the group, then it will indeed not be created,
but if there is genuine interest it would be 'permitted' (indeed, there
would be no choice if the number voting for it exceeded those voting
against with a +12 majority).
> So, do you want to see this newsgroup removed or kept in place? If you
> have an opinion, please go to uk.net.news.announce and participate in
> the discussion. Alternatively, just use this newsgroup - post an on-
> topic question or an opinion.
Go to uk.net.news.config, uk.net.news.announce is for announcements only
and other posts there will be rejected.
> On 28th April 2005 there is likely to be a call for votes on the subject
> in uk.net.news.announce There is already a hard core of people who
> think this newsgroup should be removed on principle.
Where do you get that date?
> Reply in uk.business.telework or in uk.net.news.announce
Reply in uk.business.telework or in uk.net.news.config, see above.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Chris C
Janet Reed
informative and interesting. I would be very upset to see it disappear.
Perhaps I should start being more active by asking how other teleworkers
organise working environments and cope with the isolation?
--
Janet Reed, enqu...@reed-n-right.co.uk
Reed-n-Right: Document indexing, proofreading & abstracting
Llangefni, Anglesey.
Simon Reed
and lose me any sympathy that may exist. But now I've written it I
don't want to waste it. What a dilemma. Thank Heavens for the Evil
Usenet Twin (TM).
In article <slrnd6uoia...@ccserver.keris.net>, Chris Croughton
<ch...@keristor.net> writes
>Note followup to uk.business.telework.
>
>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:03:36 +Z, Simon Reed
> <Spam...@sandj.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> However, the very low volume of postings to this newsgroup has come to
>> the attention of those who own the uk.* structure and as such they want
>> it removed.
>
>"Those who care about the uk.* structure". No one 'owns' it.
Sorry, Control. And I'll mop up the vomit at once.
>> On 28th April 2005 there is likely to be a call for votes on the subject
>> in uk.net.news.announce There is already a hard core of people who
>> think this newsgroup should be removed on principle.
>
>Where do you get that date?
An obscure source indeed, Control. The 2nd RFD that you approved
(thereby bypassing the group's moderators, as is your right as Control,
Control).
>> Reply in uk.business.telework or in uk.net.news.announce
>
>Reply in uk.business.telework or in uk.net.news.config, see above.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you for the correction, Control.
As the man said, make your feelings felt in uk.net.news.config
Keith Lawrence
> I have been a lurker for several years but have found this newsgroup
> informative and interesting. I would be very upset to see it disappear.
> Perhaps I should start being more active by asking how other teleworkers
> organise working environments and cope with the isolation?
The RFD is real (despite the moderator ignoring it), the threat of removal
is very, very real. It's a case of "use it or loose it" - when was the last
time you saw an on-topic not cross-posted thread actually discussing
teleworking on here?
This RFD will probably go to a vote. The majority of people looking at this
see a dead group. PROVE THEM WRONG! Get those people on here who want to
keep the group, get the discussions going, vote against any removal RFD.
If I see an active community on here discussing issues that the group was
meant for I'll jion you, I'll oppose the removal. But unless the group is
actually used then it will go.
Keith L
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
<427131a1$0$38040$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>
fa...@nospam.com "Keith Lawrence" wrote:
> The RFD is real (despite the moderator ignoring it), the threat of removal
> is very, very real. It's a case of "use it or loose it" - when was the last
> time you saw an on-topic not cross-posted thread actually discussing
> teleworking on here?
Oddly enough, a thread seemed to surface the other day: it was obviously
independent of the RFD discussion (and not completely on-topic, given
that the OP was based in the USA).
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu
le loisir de la faire plus courte."
Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657
Chris Croughton
<fa...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Janet Reed" <Enqu...@reed-n-right.co.uk> wrote...
>
>> I have been a lurker for several years but have found this newsgroup
>> informative and interesting. I would be very upset to see it disappear.
>
>> Perhaps I should start being more active by asking how other teleworkers
>> organise working environments and cope with the isolation?
>
> The RFD is real (despite the moderator ignoring it), the threat of removal
> is very, very real. It's a case of "use it or loose it" - when was the last
> time you saw an on-topic not cross-posted thread actually discussing
> teleworking on here?
Oddly, there was one this week (odd because it was about teleworking in
the USA, so strictly was off-topic for this group, but it meets your
requirements <g>).
> This RFD will probably go to a vote. The majority of people looking at this
> see a dead group. PROVE THEM WRONG! Get those people on here who want to
> keep the group, get the discussions going, vote against any removal RFD.
Indeed. I am certainly going to object if a Fast Track is proposed
because on the evidence I've seen it's not totally dead, I think that it
should go to a vote.
> If I see an active community on here discussing issues that the group was
> meant for I'll jion you, I'll oppose the removal. But unless the group is
> actually used then it will go.
At the moment if it comes to a vote I'll abstain. If I see evidence of
activity here I'll vote against removal, as it's a group I would use if
it had any traffic (I work from home part of the time). Although if
there are other active users of the group and they show up in
uk.net.news.config it may not get that far...
Chris C
Chris Croughton
<Spam...@sandj.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I wanted to send the following reply but I think that would be unwise
> and lose me any sympathy that may exist. But now I've written it I
> don't want to waste it. What a dilemma. Thank Heavens for the Evil
> Usenet Twin (TM).
As long as you aren't going to claim that someone else wrote it.
> In article <slrnd6uoia...@ccserver.keris.net>, Chris Croughton
> <ch...@keristor.net> writes
>>Note followup to uk.business.telework.
>>
>>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:03:36 +Z, Simon Reed
>> <Spam...@sandj.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> However, the very low volume of postings to this newsgroup has come to
>>> the attention of those who own the uk.* structure and as such they want
>>> it removed.
>>
>>"Those who care about the uk.* structure". No one 'owns' it.
>
> Sorry, Control. And I'll mop up the vomit at once.
And in fact few people /want/ to remove groups, we would much rather
that they were well-used (there seem to be a few who do take delight in
removing groups, they are probably the type who enjoy other destructive
activities as well). If the group is being used (and not just for
crossposts with the alt group) then you have nothing to fear.
>>> On 28th April 2005 there is likely to be a call for votes on the subject
>>> in uk.net.news.announce There is already a hard core of people who
>>> think this newsgroup should be removed on principle.
>>
>>Where do you get that date?
>
> An obscure source indeed, Control. The 2nd RFD that you approved
> (thereby bypassing the group's moderators, as is your right as Control,
> Control).
Ah, you have not understood. That is the absolute /earliest/ date on
which an Call For Votes (or fast-track) could be requested, after that
it takes several days before the CFV/FT is actually issued, so it is not
at all likely that the CFV will be on the 28th April. In this case,
since the RFD wasn't actually posted to uk.net.news.announce until the
21st (because of the delay trying to post it through your moderation
system) the discussion must continue until at least the 1st May before a
CFV can be implemented.
>>> Reply in uk.business.telework or in uk.net.news.announce
>>
>>Reply in uk.business.telework or in uk.net.news.config, see above.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Thank you for the correction, Control.
>
> As the man said, make your feelings felt in uk.net.news.config
Followups set to uk.net.news.config beacuse as the RFD says "ALL
DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG" (which in fact means
that all discussion which is expected to have any influence must be at
least cross-posted to unnc, because most people reading unnc are
unlikely to also be reading the group under discussion).
Chris C