-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES

Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24

YES beat NO by a majority of 104 votes. For group passage, there must be 
12 more YES votes than NO votes. Accordingly, the proposal PASSES.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voting closed at 23:59:59 BST, 7th August 2009.

Proponent : Ian Jackson
            <ijackson (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk
Votetaker : Pedt Scragg <xuld-query (at) pedt.demon.co.uk>
            Succeeded by Jon Ribbens <j.ribbens (at) ukvoting.org.uk>
	    for the vote count.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution:

uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.rec.cycling

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Results:

The results follow below in the following order:

1) Summary of Mail Received During the Voting Period
2) Results
3) Individual Vote Details
4) Votetakers Comments
5) Voting and Appeal Guidelines
6) Rationale
7) Newsgroups Line
8) Proposed Charter

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF MAIL RECEIVED DURING THE VOTING PERIOD

   194 emails were received at the ballot request address:

     193 : valid ballot requests
       1 : test by the votetaker


   176 emails were received at the vote submission address:

     170 : valid votes (including re-votes)
       1 : someone requesting a ballot paper back to the autoresponder
       1 : email regarding the vote
       1 : blank email
       1 : email received out of time
       2 : tests by the votetaker

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESULTS:

Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

       YES : 128 votes
        NO :  24 votes
   ABSTAIN :   4 votes
   -------------------  
     Total : 156 votes

YES beat NO by a majority of 104 votes. For group passage, there must be 
12 more YES votes than NO votes. Accordingly, the proposal PASSES.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDIVIDUAL VOTE DETAILS

Voted YES:

  pschleck * net,novia,oasis                      Paul W. Schleck       Y
  cam * uk,ac,ed,holyrood                         Chris Malcolm         Y
  pete.whelan * com,talk21                        Pete Whelan           Y
  steve * uk,co,stevegouldstone                   steveg                Y
  goo18731 * uk,co,yahoo                          PhilO                 Y
  damerell+urcm * uk,org,greenend,chiark          David Damerell        Y
  spiralpathways * com,googlemail                 Colin Langdon         Y
  news003 * uk,me,woodall                         Tim Woodall           Y
  a24061a * com,ducksburg                         Adam Funk             Y
  urcmvote * uk,co,f9,chthonic                    Mike Trinder          Y
  Emcmiddleton * com,aol                          Emily Middleton       Y
  palmersperry * com,yahoo                        Alistair Gunn         Y
  cgv * de,aprice                                 Andrew Price          Y
  mrc7 * uk,ac,cam                                Mike Clark            Y
  andrew_d_may * com,hotmail                      Andrew May            Y
  news06 * com,crazyscot                          Ross Younger          Y
  wirral_cyclist * uk,co,yahoo                    Neil Jones            Y
  markonnewsgroups * uk,co,yahoo                  Mark McNeill          Y
  owend * uk,org,greenend,chiark                  Owen Dunn             Y
  ian.clifton * uk,ac,ox,chem                     I J Clifton           Y
  freezing77 * com,gmail                          MJP                   Y
  mad_cyclist * uk,co,hotmail                     dave lambert          Y
  eleanorb * com,gmail                            Eleanor Blair         Y
  socks-netnews * li,earth                        Stephen Gower         Y
  keith * org,flat222                             Keith Willoughby      Y
  felix * com,felixmottram                        Felix Mottram         Y
  peter * uk,co,demon,plgrange                    Peter Grange          Y
  dglassey * com,gmail                            Daniel Glassey        Y
  stillyet * com,googlemail                       Simon Brooke          Y
  mountainoaf * com,gmail                         Mark Harris           Y
  matthew * uk,ac,cam,sel                         Matthew Vernon        Y
  {$mrtickle$} * uk,co,demon,mrtickle             Mike Henry            Y
  clareb+urcm * uk,org,greenend,chiark            Clare Boothby         Y
  rat_at_at_at * com,hotmail                      OG                    Y
  bob * uk,co,downie-geo                          geomannie             Y
  JeremyParker * com,compuserve                   Jeremy Parker         Y
  idh * uk,co,henden                              Ian                   Y
  prgs * net,scandrett                            Peter Scandrett       Y
  andrewm * uk,org,greenend,chiark                Andrew Mobbs          Y
  jpixton * com,gmail                             Joseph Birr-Pixton    Y
  guy.chapman * uk,co,chapmancentral              Guy Chapman           Y
  mike * nz,co,ballantine                         EMB                   Y
  kat.news * com,ntlworld                         kat                   Y
  saramerriman * uk,co,blueyonder                 Sara Merriman         Y
  chris * uk,org,fluffhouse                       Chris Jackson         Y
  mark * uk,co,good-stuff                         Mark Goodge           Y
  cgf * uk,co,familyfrench                        Chris French          Y
  d * uk,co,redpedals                             Danny Colyer          Y
  real-not-anti-spam-address * uk,co,apple-juice  D.M. Procida          Y
  {R} * org,semolina,voting                       {R}                   Y
  steve * uk,co,puppet-head                       Steve                 Y
  maurice * uk,co,demon,grappenhall               Maurice Leslie        Y
  rex.belcher * uk,ac,ox,eng                      Rex                   Y
  mike * com,urgle                                Mike Bristow          Y
  blahdiblah * com,freeuk                         Dave Johnson          Y
  D.H.Davis * uk,ac,bath                          Dennis Davis          Y
  crn * com,netunix                               crn                   Y
  jbpnaylon * uk,co,yahoo                         john                  Y
  armb * uk,org,greenend,chiark                   Alan Braggins         Y
  pwomack * uk,co,papermule                       bugbear               Y
  martin.dann * net,virgin                        Martin Dann           Y
  ncliffe * com,btinternet                        Nigel Cliffe          Y
  kim * net,ductilebiscuit                        Kim Wall              Y
  daniel * net,dignam                             Daniel Dignam         Y
  pag * com,mythic-beasts                         Paul Gilkerson        Y
  dickon * net,cantab                             Dickon Reed           Y
  xpzzzz * net,tesco                              none                  Y
  pcoach * ca,htac                                hbhb                  Y
  dan * net,telent                                Daniel Barlow         Y
  andyl * com,plus,azaal                          Andy Leighton         Y
  bod43 * uk,co,hotmail                           bod43                 Y
  merriman * com,sarlet                           Roger Merriman        Y
  james.annan * com,gmail                         James Annan           Y
  timhenderson * com,sky                          Tim Henderson         Y
  inbox * uk,co,globalnet,pattle                  Andrew Pattle         Y
  ret28 * uk,ac,cam                               Richard Thrippleton   Y
  congokid * com,congokid                         congokid              Y
  monkeyhanger1968 * net,netscape                 Chris Slade           Y
  k1100t * com,gmail                              Bob                   Y
  mcpheat * com,hotmail                           R McPheat             Y
  michael.richard.jones * com,gmail               Mike Jones            Y
  mike * uk,co,tauzero                            Mike Fleming          Y
  paul * uk,co,eclipse,pluton                     Paul Luton            Y
  steve.williams1000 * com,ntlworld               Steve Williams        Y
  john * com,plus,zothique                        John Kendall          Y
  davidh * uk,co,spidacom                         David Hansen          Y
  tapan * uk,co,blueyonder                        Trevor A Panther      Y
  brian13434 * uk,co,yahoo                        BD  (Brian Duffell)   Y
  ijackson * uk,org,greenend,chiark               Ian Jackson           Y
  colin.nelson2 * com,ntlworld                    Colin Nelson          Y
  martin * uk,co,demon,thequiff                   Martin Richardson     Y
  nospam * com,ntlworld                           Rob Morley            Y
  urcm-jan * org,tarasowka                        Jan Wysocki           Y
  nick * org,shmanahar                            Jim                   Y
  colin * uk,co,colinreed                         Colin Reed            Y
  phil * uk,co,kantaka                            Phil Armstrong        Y
  timhall * uk,co,clara                           Tim Hall              Y
  keith.wunohsix * com,btinternet                 Keitht                Y
  phil * uk,me,lee-family                         Phil W Lee            Y
  jdamery * uk,org,greenend,chiark                Jonathan David Amery  Y
  peter * uk,ltd,wpp                              Peter Parry           Y
  tcnw81 * uk,co,demon,tarrcity                   Wm...                 Y
  h-c-s * uk,co,hotmail                           wafflycat             Y
  owenrees * com,waitrose                         Owen Rees             Y
  {voter} * uk,co,clara,watman                    paul                  Y
  passingtyke * uk,co,myzen,tillotson             Passing Tyke          Y
  pmaydell * uk,org,greenend,chiark               Peter Maydell         Y
  r.thorpe * uk,ac,warwick                        Roger Thorpe          Y
  clive * uk,co,evil-c                            Clive George          Y
  bigfoot * org,davros                            Anthony R. Gold       Y
  alan * uk,co,maydavid                           Alan Lee              Y
  p3t3r.f0rd * com,gmail                          Peter Ford            Y
  clive * uk,co,demon,cmartin                     Clive Martin          Y
  legs_larry * com,yahoo                          Dave Larrington       Y
  jpmg * uk,ac,cam,eng                            Patrick Gosling       Y
  cfv * com,thegerhards                           Chris Gerhard         Y
  peter.keller * nz,co,ihug                       Peter Keller          Y
  unet0609 * org,ukfsn,PeterFox                   Peter Fox             Y
  daviduri * com,bigfoot                          David Uri             Y
  john * uk,co,hairy-bunnets                      hbunnet               Y
  rudil * uk,ac,sussex                            Rudi Lutz             Y
  ganesh * li,earth                               Ganesh Sittampalam    Y
  dot * at,dotat                                  Tony Finch            Y
  phil * uk,org,ridgway                           Phil Ridgway          Y
  alex * uk,co,ap-consulting                      Alex Potter           Y
  paul * uk,co,rudin                              Paul Rudin            Y
  roger * org,firedrake                           Roger Burton West     Y
  rjk * uk,org,greenend                           Richard Kettlewell    Y

Voted NO:

  nigel * com,nigedanton                          Nige Danton           N
  noparadise * com,gmail                          Allan Hack-Barr       N
  peadar.ruadh * com,gmail                        Peter J Ross          N
  mail * com,britishschoolofcycling               Tom Crispin           N
  mark * net,homeip,aziraphale                    Mark Williams         N
  judithmsmith * uk,co,live                       Judith Smith          N
  tony.dragon * com,btinternet                    Tony Dragon           N
  huge * uk,org,huge                              Huge                  N
  urcm * uk,me,meldrew                            Victor Meldrew        N
  ACROSLAN * com,altera                           Andrew Crosland       N
  the.happy.hippy * com,ntlworld                  The Happy Hippy       N
  peter * uk,co,pandasys                          pcb1962               N
  Brian * uk,co,force9,bjforster                  Brian                 N
  jax65 * net,talktalk                            Jackie Eastwood       N
  mikeandmichellesmailbox * com,gmail             Aard                  N
  david.kemper * com,ntlworld                     David Kemper          N
  vote * uk,co,malloc                             Steve Firth           N
  albenito * uk,co,freeserve,eclipse2k            Allan Bennett         N
  jefrs * uk,co,jeffslade                         Jeff Slade            N
  Roger.Collier * COM,Sun                         Roger Collier         N
  matt.bourke * com,london                        Matt B                N
  eddie * org,deguello                            Eddie                 N
  pipryder * com,gmail                            Philip Ryder          N
  censorshipnoto * uk,co,yahoo                    Mr Benn               N

Voted ABSTAIN:

  nospam * name,nominet                           .mother               A
  ian * uk,org,astounding                         Ian SMith             A
  usenet05 * uk,me,drabble                        Graham Drabble        A
  chaz * com,chaz6                                Chris Hills           A

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

REJECTED VOTES

  y5ojlnx02 * com,sneakemail                      Mark                  Y
        Sent via an email-anonymising service (sneakemail.com)

  steve * uk,org,clarke                           Steve Clarke          Y
        Received out of time

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Votetaker Comments:

This vote had one of the largest turn-outs for very many years, with 156
votes accepted.

The votetaker for the entire voting period was Pedt Scragg, but
unfortunately he went incommunicado before any results were produced.
This eventuality was prepared for, however, with all the voting emails
being backed-up on the central UKVoting server. After it appeared that
Pedt was definitely not going to return imminently, the vote count was
taken over by myself, Jon Ribbens.

I have therefore prepared these results with an eye to getting the
process concluded with reasonable efficiency. There did not appear
to me to be any significant amount of vote fraud, and the margin of
the result - 104 votes - means that investigating any few individual
suspect votes could not possibly affect the outcome, and would only
delay the result further.

I did reject two votes. One was received after the voting deadline, so
is a straightforward reject. The other was sent via an email service,
sneakemail.com, which appears to be specifically intended to hide and
anonymise sender information.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

This vote was conducted by a neutral third party member of UKVoting. 
UKVoting is a group of independent votetakers who count votes on behalf 
of the uk.* hierarchy and other 3rd parties.  

The rules under which votes for the uk.* hierarchy are taken are posted 
regularly to uk.net.news.announce or can be found at the following URL:

<http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html>

The UKVoting web pages can be found at <http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/>

There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted to
uk.net.news.announce.  Allegations of irregularity should be sent to
control (at) usenet.org.uk

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

RATIONALE 

uk.rec.cycling has for some time been suffering from trolling,
nym-shifting and forgeries.  Many of these posts are abusive and
hostile to cycling.  Repetitive flamage now constitutes 50-75% of 
the group by number of articles.  This ongoing and worsening problem 
has been making the group nearly unuseable for ordinary discussion; 
many posters have already left.

I therefore propose that we should create:

uk.rec.cycling.moderated

===================================================================

PROPONENT's Summary of Discussion

This CFV (and the 2nd RFD, which was almost identical) is the 
result of major changes made to the 1st RFD following extensive 1st 
RFD discussion.  The current proposal is much shorter and simpler 
than the 1st RFD and and has a much more light-touch moderation 
policy.

Following the 2nd RFD there was once more an extensive and wide
ranging discussion.  Unfortunately, of the >1400 articles, a 
majority were personal abuse and off-topic ranting.  However, there 
were also some important and relevant points.

At least 31 people posted to say that they were in favour of the
proposal and would like to see it enacted; some of these were 
departed posters from urc who said they would return to use the new 
group.

Many specific questions were asked about the moderators' views 
about various kinds of moderation decision.  One proposed moderator 
reviewed a period of posts to uk.rec.cycling and posted a list of 
messages they would have approved.

Questions were asked and about my technical facilities and skills
as proposed moderation systems host; additionally the operator of
moderation.org.uk kindly volunteered to help with the hosting.

Some people objected to moderation in principle, and/or raised more
detailed objections.  While these objections were strongly expressed
and vigorously pursued often at length, they came from only a handful
of posters and in my view were not supported more generally.

The method by which the moderators were selected was again examined 
in some detail.  It was suggested that the moderators should be
individually elected.  This would be an unusual practice for a
moderated group and in my view raises at least as many problems as it
solves.  The discussion consensus was in favour of the usual approach
(which is to vote on the moderation panel as a whole, and thereafter
have the moderators appoint their successors).

The question of the crossposting policy was once again discussed at
length.  Even amonst more experienced participants in the discussion
there was no clear consensus on whether the moderation policy should
absolutely ban all crossposting.  I have chosen to retain the existing
wording as this will be more truthful (for example, appropriate usenet
management announcements such as RFDs will be permitted the new
moderated group).  The moderators made it clear that they intend to
ban crossposing to uk.rec.cycling and of course crossposted trolling.

There was extensive discussion of the appeal and escalation options
and processes available to people who disagree with moderation
decisions; the answers did not appear to satisfy the objectors.

There was much discussion of the exact status of .signatures,
particularly .sigs containing inflammatory statements (which have been
a problematic feature in urc).  The moderators indicated that messages
with flamebait in the .sig would be rejected.  A few posters objected
and complained that this wasn't spelled out in the moderation policy.

Some other objections I rejected:  The moderation panel was a clique.
The encouragement of `General discussion amongst UK cyclists' was
purely there to allow the clique to post whatever they liked.  The
point was to let people be nasty to trolls without letting trolls
reply.  Permitting limited discussion of the moderation policy in 
the group itself would surely spell doom for the new group.  The
moderators should not blacklist persistent offenders or should only 
do so with reference to some formal procedure.  Crossposting was not
being 100% ruled out because the plan was to crosspost trolling rants
in hostile newsgroups.  Moderation decisions should be governed by
published procedures to ensure consistency.  The failure of
uk.local.yorkshire.moderated demonstrated that creating a moderated
newsgroup could not solve a noise problem.  uk.rec.cycling had been
much better recently so it would be better to wait six months and see
if moderation was still needed then.

===================================================================

CHANGES from the last RFD

Banning `obscenity' gave the impression that cursing would not be
permitted, despite the general view (as in the previous discussion)
that it should be allowed.  `Obscenity' was also thought rather 
vague. There being no reason to retain it, The moderation policy 
has been altered to remove `obscenity' from the list of things 
prohibited.

Asking posters to uk.rec.cycling to `switch' to the new group was 
felt by some to be inappropriate. The moderation policy now speaks
of 'inviting posters and readers' without suggesting that they 
should abandon the unmoderated group.

The rationale previously referred to telephone harassment suffered 
by a poster to uk.rec.cycling.  This didn't add anything to the 
proposal and was needlessly controversial so, following suggestions 
in the discussion, this has been removed.

There are no changes to the charter or moderator panel.

===================================================================

INITIAL MODERATION POLICY

The following are on-topic and encouraged:
 * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
 * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
   on cycling within the UK;
 * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
 * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.

The following are prohibited:
 * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
 * Personal abuse; flames;
 * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
   discussion.

Crossposting is at present generally not permitted.
Brief and constructive discussion of the moderation policy is
permitted in the newsgroup itself.


The moderators operate a passlist system, so that messages from
regular on-topic posters can be posted promptly and automatically.
Threads which have descended into repetition or abuse may be closed by
the moderators.

Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or
to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole
moderation panel.

This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit.

The moderators can be reached at
  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/

A summary of approved and rejected posts is available on the website.

The moderators will make a regular posting to uk.rec.cycling,
advertising the moderated group and inviting readers and posters.

Moderators:

  Alan Braggins
  Andy Leighton
  Danny Colyer
  David Damerell
  Ian Jackson
  Martin Dann
  Nigel Cliffe
  Peter Clinch
  Peter Fox
  Roger Thorpe
  Simon Brooke

===================================================================

NEWSGROUPS LINE

uk.rec.cycling.moderated              Cycling in the UK (Moderated)

===================================================================

CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
and the UK.  Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
other forms of cycling are all on-topic.

Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains civil,
pleasant, and of interest to cyclists.

The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively
feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group.


Binaries and Formatting

Encoded binaries (eg pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a
pointer may be posted.  Cryptographic signatures (eg PGP) may be used
where authentication is important and should be as short as possible.

Posts must be readable as plain text.  HTML, RTF and similarly
formatted messages are prohibited.  To see how to make some common
news readers comply with this, read  
http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html

END CHARTER

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.6-(GNU/Linux)
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBSrfFKGOfGXkh8vHZAQK87wP/VNVVPRHaxXbS+6P/mXwIF5qDNUJqjV1M
EjC0ZaVz8C94nxMI3heN8Viw9kNKQ6Qzig3BE8NvoKJo8OniK9QloG0Qb6RAKx1d
SiPFHbly93vEAID5wjCkv055ocPRoZ9vtpOMOVXEsUyAtqc5oCV3MxTlNxb90TyA
fKRxXRPJgIE=
=xt5b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:25:38 +0100, Jon Ribbens
 wrote:

[uk.rec.cycling put back into the NG line.  It is customary to warn
posters if follow-ups have been set]

>RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>
>Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
>Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24

I hope the new group succeeds.

At 19:25:38 on Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Jon Ribbens  
wrote in 
<result-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090921182538$1085@gradwell.net>:

>RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES

Thank you, Jon, for taking over and producing a clear set of results in 
a fairly short period of time.

I very much hope that we eventually hear that Pedt is OK.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:52:59 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>Thank you, Jon, for taking over and producing a clear set of results in 
>a fairly short period of time.
>
>I very much hope that we eventually hear that Pedt is OK.

Totally agree - on both statements.

On Sep 21, 7:43 pm, Tom Crispin
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

> I hope the new group succeeds.

That's down to us to make it so, Tom, so I hope so too.

How about a launch party in Londonton?  I'll buy you a beer to
compensate for not buying you one on Sunday :-)
--
Guy

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:33:32 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sep 21, 7:25 pm, Jon Ribbens  wrote:
>> RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>> Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>> Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
>
>H!tfd! as they say in the Shed.


Yeeeees - as they say in the real world.

--          

I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.  I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)

.m  said:

> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:52:59 +0100, Molly Mockford
>  wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Jon, for taking over and producing a clear set of results
>> in a fairly short period of time.
>>
>> I very much hope that we eventually hear that Pedt is OK.
>
> Totally agree - on both statements.

Thirded.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:14: "kat"  wrote:

>.m  said:
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:52:59 +0100, Molly Mockford
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you, Jon, for taking over and producing a clear set of results
>>> in a fairly short period of time.
>>>
>>> I very much hope that we eventually hear that Pedt is OK.
>>
>> Totally agree - on both statements.
>
>Thirded

Fourf'd

-- 
 paul                                                (C) © 2009 is mine

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:04:17 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

[unnc removed]

>On Sep 21, 7:43 pm, Tom Crispin
><kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>> I hope the new group succeeds.
>
>That's down to us to make it so, Tom, so I hope so too.
>
>How about a launch party in Londonton?  I'll buy you a beer to
>compensate for not buying you one on Sunday :-)

We could do launch bike ride, if you have a free day one weekend...

How about this bike ride as a figure of eight:
http://www.jubileegreenway.org.uk/
Starting and finishing at Paddington, crossing the Thames four times -
1 Canary Wharf to Hilton Ferry
2 Woolwich Ferry
3 Canary Wharf to Hilton Ferry
4 Lambeth Bridge

Jon Ribbens wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> 
> RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
> 
> Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> 
> Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
> 
> YES beat NO by a majority of 104 votes. For group passage, there must be 
> 12 more YES votes than NO votes. Accordingly, the proposal PASSES.
> 
> - -------------------------------------------------------------------------

I shall definitly subscribe to that if it's carried by my ISP.  I'll 
stay with URC for the time being because at least Fuxxy and Moody Judy 
seemed to have exhausted themselves in an orgy of mutual masturbation.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:52:59 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>I very much hope that we eventually hear that Pedt is OK.

Indeed. The silence is very worrying :-(

"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message 
news:h2ifb51bg2hae4saqgsdbefai39op87r1u@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:25:38 +0100, Jon Ribbens
>  wrote:
>
> [uk.rec.cycling put back into the NG line.  It is customary to warn
> posters if follow-ups have been set]
>
>>RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>>
>>Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>
>>Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
>
> I hope the new group succeeds.

Same here, I'll try to join in next few days.
John "'bout time too" Clayton

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:52:59 <wJ$wJ1WLu8tKFw9G@molly.mockford> 
uk.net.news.config Molly Mockford 

>Thank you, Jon, for taking over and producing a clear set of results in 
>a fairly short period of time.
>
>I very much hope that we eventually hear that Pedt is OK.

wot the lady said

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:55:16 +0100, "John Clayton"
 wrote:

>
>"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message 
>news:h2ifb51bg2hae4saqgsdbefai39op87r1u@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:25:38 +0100, Jon Ribbens
>>  wrote:
>>
>> [uk.rec.cycling put back into the NG line.  It is customary to warn
>> posters if follow-ups have been set]
>>
>>>RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>>>
>>>Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>>
>>>Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
>>
>> I hope the new group succeeds.
>
>Same here, I'll try to join in next few days.
>John "'bout time too" Clayton 
>


Join "what" in the "next few days"?

Unless Jackson has assumed the result would be a "yes" and has cracked
on making his system work with the rest of the world  I suspect it
could be a few weeks away yet.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

In article <result-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090921182538$1085@gradwell.net>,
Jon Ribbens   wrote:
>RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24

Thanks very much, Jon, for quickly picking this up.  And thanks to
everyone who voted and helped out with the discussion and of course to
the moderation panel.

I'll blow the dust off the moderation machinery (which is mostly set
up) and figure out what the next steps are, tomorrow.  I'm going to
share technical control of the moderation machinery with co-moderator
David Damerell; this will help as I'm going to be away for a week
starting this coming Saturday (and of course in general help provide
cover when either of us is unavailable).

I look forward to seeing the success of the new group.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

In article ,
jms   wrote:
>Unless Jackson has assumed the result would be a "yes" and has cracked
>on making his system work with the rest of the world  I suspect it
>could be a few weeks away yet.

I'm an optimist.  So yes, I got the moderation machinery set up at my
end during the voting period.  I've tested it as best I can and all
seems to be well.

I'll get in touch with Control to work out the technical details, do
final setup, and make sure that David Damerell has a copy of the keys
(so to speak) so he can make any changes that might be needed (since
I'll be away next week, on a long-planned holiday).

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:58:18 +0100, Tosspot 
wrote:

>Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> 
>> 
>> RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>> 
>> Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>> 
>> Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
>> 
>> YES beat NO by a majority of 104 votes. For group passage, there must be 
>> 12 more YES votes than NO votes. Accordingly, the proposal PASSES.
>> 
>> - -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I shall definitly subscribe to that if it's carried by my ISP.  I'll 
>stay with URC for the time being because at least Fuxxy and Moody Judy 
>seemed to have exhausted themselves in an orgy of mutual masturbation.


Indeed - I am looking forward to the censored group - but of course I
will still make a valid contribution to urc.

-- 
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:  Pedal Cyclists : 527    Pedestrians 371
All casualties:  Pedal Cyclists : 3494    Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

Molly Mockford wrote on Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:52:59 +0100:

> Thank you, Jon, for taking over and producing a clear set of results in
> a fairly short period of time.

+1

> 
> I very much hope that we eventually hear that Pedt is OK.

+1

-- 
Regards
Alex

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

In message , paul 
 writes
>On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:14: "kat"  wrote:
>
>>.m  said:
>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:52:59 +0100, Molly Mockford
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you, Jon, for taking over and producing a clear set of results
>>>> in a fairly short period of time.
>>>>
>>>> I very much hope that we eventually hear that Pedt is OK.
>>>
>>> Totally agree - on both statements.
>>
>>Thirded
>
>Fourf'd
>
Fif'd

Glad that is finally sorted.

What sort of time scale is it before a newsgroup start appearing on 
servers? (in my case NIN)
-- 
Chris French

On 22 Sep, 00:13, Ian Jackson  wrote:
> In article <result-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090921182538$1...@gradwell.net>,
> Jon Ribbens   wrote:
>
> >RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
> >Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> >Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
>
> Thanks very much, Jon, for quickly picking this up.  And thanks to
> everyone who voted and helped out with the discussion and of course to
> the moderation panel.

Me too - thank you very much for your efforts..

I have little love for the move to moderation however the
recent attacks on the group seem to have left no other
option.

I hope it will work out for the best.

> How about a launch party in Londonton?  I'll buy you a beer to
> compensate for not buying you one on Sunday :-)

Not wishing to gatecrash this, but I'd certainly be interested in
attending. Got some free SWT weekend rail travel tickets to use up.

--
Oaf

chris French  said:

> In message , paul
>  writes
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:14: "kat"  wrote:
>>
>>> .m  said:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:52:59 +0100, Molly Mockford
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, Jon, for taking over and producing a clear set of
>>>>> results in a fairly short period of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I very much hope that we eventually hear that Pedt is OK.
>>>>
>>>> Totally agree - on both statements.
>>>
>>> Thirded
>>
>> Fourf'd
>>
> Fif'd
>
> Glad that is finally sorted.
>
> What sort of time scale is it before a newsgroup start appearing on
> servers? (in my case NIN)

That depends.  You will see in the OP that there is a 5 day discussion 
period and during that time any allegations of irregularity can be sent to 
Control.    If none are received Control can deal with it straight away, 
real life permitting, and NIN are very good about picking up control 
messages.  If any are received the Comittee will need to discuss them.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On Sep 22, 8:18 am, Man With Chip  wrote:
> > How about a launch party in Londonton?  I'll buy you a beer to
> > compensate for not buying you one on Sunday :-)
>
> Not wishing to gatecrash this, but I'd certainly be interested in
> attending. Got some free SWT weekend rail travel tickets to use up.

If anyone is interested, then it will happen through the usual
mechanism of someone naming the pub and the rest of us turning up :-)
--
GUy

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:25:38 +0100, Jon Ribbens 
wrote:

> YES beat NO by a majority of 104 votes. For group passage, there must be 
> 12 more YES votes than NO votes. Accordingly, the proposal PASSES.

Great work Jon.  The vote handling systems that allowed someone else to
jump in and still generate results in a very few days is a tribute to the
planning and improvements since the Committee election of 7 years ago.

Tony

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:24:43 -0700 (PDT), bod43 
wrote:

>On 22 Sep, 00:13, Ian Jackson  wrote:
>> In article <result-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090921182538$1...@gradwell.net>,
>> Jon Ribbens   wrote:
>>
>> >RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>> >Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>> >Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
>>
>> Thanks very much, Jon, for quickly picking this up.  And thanks to
>> everyone who voted and helped out with the discussion and of course to
>> the moderation panel.
>
>Me too - thank you very much for your efforts..

+1

>I have little love for the move to moderation however the
>recent attacks on the group seem to have left no other
>option.
>
>I hope it will work out for the best.

I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.  I
got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion with
Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email address but
revoted with my real address when my initial vote was rejected).


-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:51:10 +0100, Mark
<i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:

>>I hope it will work out for the best.
>
>I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.  I
>got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion with
>Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email address but
>revoted with my real address when my initial vote was rejected).


Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows what
has happened to him.
-- 
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Put thecat out to email

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:19:05 +0100, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:51:10 +0100, Mark
><i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>I hope it will work out for the best.
>>
>>I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.  I
>>got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion with
>>Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email address but
>>revoted with my real address when my initial vote was rejected).
>
>Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows what
>has happened to him.

This was before he disappeared and I would have expected in any case
my vote not to have been "lost".  Other votes have been counted, why
not mine?  My corrected vote was sent to the correct email address and
I got a formal acknowledgement.
-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

In article ,
 Stuart Millington  writes:
>On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:52:59 +0100, Molly Mockford
> wrote:
>
>>I very much hope that we eventually hear that Pedt is OK.
>
>Indeed. The silence is very worrying :-(
>

I'd like to echo that.
-- 
John Hall     "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
              "Well, actually, they're American."
      "So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
                                  Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> said:

> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:19:05 +0100, Geoff Berrow
>  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:51:10 +0100, Mark
>> <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> I hope it will work out for the best.
>>>
>>> I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.
>>> I got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion
>>> with Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email address
>>> but revoted with my real address when my initial vote was rejected).
>>
>> Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows
>> what has happened to him.
>
> This was before he disappeared and I would have expected in any case
> my vote not to have been "lost".  Other votes have been counted, why
> not mine?  My corrected vote was sent to the correct email address and
> I got a formal acknowledgement.

Is your corrected vote in the list of accepted votes?


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:36:57 +0100, Mark
<i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:

>>Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows what
>>has happened to him.
>
>This was before he disappeared and I would have expected in any case
>my vote not to have been "lost".  Other votes have been counted, why
>not mine?  My corrected vote was sent to the correct email address and
>I got a formal acknowledgement.


<shrug> Difficult circumstances, what would you suggest we do?  

 
-- 
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Put thecat out to email

In article ,
 Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:19:05 +0100, Geoff Berrow
>  wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:51:10 +0100, Mark
> ><i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>>I hope it will work out for the best.
> >>
> >>I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.  I
> >>got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion with
> >>Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email address but
> >>revoted with my real address when my initial vote was rejected).
> >
> >Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows what
> >has happened to him.
> 
> This was before he disappeared and I would have expected in any case
> my vote not to have been "lost".  Other votes have been counted, why
> not mine?  My corrected vote was sent to the correct email address and
> I got a formal acknowledgement.

The same happened to me, Pedt didn't think I was a real person since 
most of my posting history was in a different name (my maiden name) and 
I was posting from the same IP address as someone else - my husband!

I too got an acknowledgment after emailing Pedt to explain that I was 
really real, but nothing thereafter.

Since the vote went the way I wanted I'm not too fussed.

-- 
Married and loving it

In article ,
 "kat"  wrote:

> Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> said:
> 
> > On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:19:05 +0100, Geoff Berrow
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:51:10 +0100, Mark
> >> <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I hope it will work out for the best.
> >>>
> >>> I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.
> >>> I got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion
> >>> with Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email address
> >>> but revoted with my real address when my initial vote was rejected).
> >>
> >> Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows
> >> what has happened to him.
> >
> > This was before he disappeared and I would have expected in any case
> > my vote not to have been "lost".  Other votes have been counted, why
> > not mine?  My corrected vote was sent to the correct email address and
> > I got a formal acknowledgement.
> 
> Is your corrected vote in the list of accepted votes?

How would one find that?

-- 
Married and loving it

Sara  writes:

> In article ,
>  "kat"  wrote:
>
>> 
>> Is your corrected vote in the list of accepted votes?
>
> How would one find that?

First post of this Fred.

"Molly Mockford"  wrote in message 
news:wJ$wJ1WLu8tKFw9G@molly.mockford...
> At 19:25:38 on Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Jon Ribbens  
> wrote in 
> <result-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090921182538$1085@gradwell.net>:
>
>>RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>
> Thank you, Jon, for taking over and producing a clear set of results in a 
> fairly short period of time.
>
> I very much hope that we eventually hear that Pedt is OK.

Same from me, on both counts.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:07:48 +0100, Paul Rudin wrote:

> First post of this Fred.

But only if you subscribe to uk.net.news.config

Followup set to unnc

-- 
John the R-T
Do NOT reply to the heypete address.  Reply to is valid
http://www.john-the-r-t.co.uk/ Cruise and Family site.
http://john-the-r-t.110mb.com/ - Annexe.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:02:51 +0100, Sara
 wrote:

>In article ,
> Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:19:05 +0100, Geoff Berrow
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:51:10 +0100, Mark
>> ><i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>I hope it will work out for the best.
>> >>
>> >>I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.  I
>> >>got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion with
>> >>Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email address but
>> >>revoted with my real address when my initial vote was rejected).
>> >
>> >Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows what
>> >has happened to him.
>> 
>> This was before he disappeared and I would have expected in any case
>> my vote not to have been "lost".  Other votes have been counted, why
>> not mine?  My corrected vote was sent to the correct email address and
>> I got a formal acknowledgement.
>
>The same happened to me, Pedt didn't think I was a real person since 
>most of my posting history was in a different name (my maiden name) and 
>I was posting from the same IP address as someone else - my husband!
>
>I too got an acknowledgment after emailing Pedt to explain that I was 
>really real, but nothing thereafter.
>
>Since the vote went the way I wanted I'm not too fussed.

ffs

It's hardly rocket science.

saramerriman * uk,co,blueyonder            Sara Merriman         Y
merriman * com,sarlet                        Roger Merriman        Y


Perhaps your husband voted on your behalf and didn't tell you.

-- 
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:  Pedal Cyclists : 527    Pedestrians 371
All casualties:  Pedal Cyclists : 3494    Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

In message , 
Sara  writes
>In article ,
> Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:19:05 +0100, Geoff Berrow
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:51:10 +0100, Mark
>> ><i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>I hope it will work out for the best.
>> >>
>> >>I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.  I
>> >>got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion with
>> >>Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email address but
>> >>revoted with my real address when my initial vote was rejected).
>> >
>> >Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows what
>> >has happened to him.
>>
>> This was before he disappeared and I would have expected in any case
>> my vote not to have been "lost".  Other votes have been counted, why
>> not mine?  My corrected vote was sent to the correct email address and
>> I got a formal acknowledgement.
>
>The same happened to me, Pedt didn't think I was a real person since
>most of my posting history was in a different name (my maiden name) and
>I was posting from the same IP address as someone else - my husband!
>
>I too got an acknowledgment after emailing Pedt to explain that I was
>really real, but nothing thereafter.
>
>Since the vote went the way I wanted I'm not too fussed.
>
There is a YES vote from you from the address you used to post this 
listed in the results.


No idea about Mark as I don't know which Mark he might be.
-- 
Chris French

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:02:51 
 
uk.net.news.config Sara 

[on some votes *possibly* not being counted or lost]

>In article ,
> Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:19:05 +0100, Geoff Berrow
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:51:10 +0100, Mark
>> ><i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:

>> >>I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.  I
>> >>got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion with
>> >>Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email address but
>> >>revoted with my real address when my initial vote was rejected).
>> >
>> >Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows what
>> >has happened to him.
>>
>> This was before he disappeared and I would have expected in any case
>> my vote not to have been "lost".  Other votes have been counted, why
>> not mine?  My corrected vote was sent to the correct email address and
>> I got a formal acknowledgement.
>
>The same happened to me, Pedt didn't think I was a real person since
>most of my posting history was in a different name (my maiden name) and
>I was posting from the same IP address as someone else - my husband!
>
>I too got an acknowledgment after emailing Pedt to explain that I was
>really real, but nothing thereafter.
>
>Since the vote went the way I wanted I'm not too fussed.

 From the unnc POV the important bit is that the result is unambiguous. 
If it had been close run I am certain Jon would have got out the UKV 
metaphorical microscope and started examining individual votes.  That 
simply wasn't necessary in this case and being "not too fussed" is, IMO, 
more appropriate than being disappointed considering that we are still 
not sure what Pedt's circumstances are.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:59:04 +0100, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:36:57 +0100, Mark
><i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows what
>>>has happened to him.
>>
>>This was before he disappeared and I would have expected in any case
>>my vote not to have been "lost".  Other votes have been counted, why
>>not mine?  My corrected vote was sent to the correct email address and
>>I got a formal acknowledgement.
>
><shrug> Difficult circumstances, what would you suggest we do?  

I was not suggesting that any action be taken, except perhaps for the
votetakers to ensure that this cannot happen again.
-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:55:02 +0100, "kat" 
wrote:

>Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> said:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:19:05 +0100, Geoff Berrow
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:51:10 +0100, Mark
>>> <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I hope it will work out for the best.
>>>>
>>>> I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.
>>>> I got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion
>>>> with Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email address
>>>> but revoted with my real address when my initial vote was rejected).
>>>
>>> Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows
>>> what has happened to him.
>>
>> This was before he disappeared and I would have expected in any case
>> my vote not to have been "lost".  Other votes have been counted, why
>> not mine?  My corrected vote was sent to the correct email address and
>> I got a formal acknowledgement.
>
>Is your corrected vote in the list of accepted votes?

No.  I wouldn't have complained that my vote was not counted it it had
been!
-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

In article ,
 Paul Rudin  wrote:

> Sara  writes:
> 
> > In article ,
> >  "kat"  wrote:
> >
> >> 
> >> Is your corrected vote in the list of accepted votes?
> >
> > How would one find that?
> 
> First post of this Fred.

So it was! I didn't read the whole thing, sorry for being a twit. And I 
am indeed listed. Hurrah.

-- 
Married and loving it

Geoff Berrow  wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:51:10 +0100, Mark
> <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >>I hope it will work out for the best.
> >
> >I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.  I
> >got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion with
> >Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email address but
> >revoted with my real address when my initial vote was rejected).
> 
> 
> Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows what
> has happened to him.

Surely someone has his phone number, or knows his address, or something?
Presumably, what has happened is something fairly serious.

Daniele

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:20:42 +0100,
real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:

>> Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows what
>> has happened to him.
>
>Surely someone has his phone number, or knows his address, or something?

Yes they do but apparently all efforts have drawn a blank.  It is very
worrying.
-- 
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Put thecat out to email

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:32 <6eufd0d7xg7f$.1ii7xywgxduee$.dlg@40tude.net> 
uk.net.news.config John the R-T 

[uk.rec.cycling added back in as Sara may be reading from there]

>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:07:48 +0100, Paul Rudin wrote:
>
>> First post of this Fred.

Shouldn't be necessary for me to say but just in case Fred => thread

>But only if you subscribe to uk.net.news.config
>
>Followup set to unnc

That isn't very useful.  The RESULT was posted to
===
uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config, uk.rec.cycling
===
so PaulR's advice was correct if Sara follows any of those groups and 
she must be following at least one of them if you think about it.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:51:10 +0100, Mark
<i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:

>I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.  I
>got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion with
>Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email address but
>revoted with my real address when my initial vote was rejected).

It was inevitable that any discussions directly with Pedt may not have
been available to Jon when he took over the count, however unless
there were 93 lost 'no' votes, the outcome would not have been
affected.

In message , . m 
<nospam@notnominet.name.invalid> writes
>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:51:10 +0100, Mark
><i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.  I
>>got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion with
>>Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email address but
>>revoted with my real address when my initial vote was rejected).
>
>It was inevitable that any discussions directly with Pedt may not have
>been available to Jon when he took over the count, however unless
>there were 93 lost 'no' votes, the outcome would not have been
>affected.
>
>
True, but Mark says he made a further vote from a valid address which 
was accepted. This should surely have been included in the votes that 
Jon worked with. Are you sure it isn't on the vote list Mark?

It terms of the result it makes no difference. It might be  an issue if 
the vote has gone awol as that would might indicate some problem with 
the vote recording process.
-- 
Chris French

John the R-T  writes:

> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:07:48 +0100, Paul Rudin wrote:
>
>> First post of this Fred.
>
> But only if you subscribe to uk.net.news.config

Hmm - from here it looks like the first post of the thread was made with
newsgroups: "uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config, uk.rec.cycling".

On 2009-09-21, Ian Jackson wrote:

> In article <result-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090921182538$1085@gradwell.net>,
> Jon Ribbens   wrote:
>>RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>>Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
>
> Thanks very much, Jon, for quickly picking this up.  And thanks to
> everyone who voted and helped out with the discussion and of course to
> the moderation panel.
>
> I'll blow the dust off the moderation machinery (which is mostly set
> up) and figure out what the next steps are, tomorrow.  I'm going to
> share technical control of the moderation machinery with co-moderator
> David Damerell; this will help as I'm going to be away for a week
> starting this coming Saturday (and of course in general help provide
> cover when either of us is unavailable).

I'd like to thank you and everyone else who got this going, as well as
all the other people who voted in favour.

> I look forward to seeing the success of the new group.

So do I, of course!

On 2009-09-21, Molly Mockford wrote:

> Thank you, Jon, for taking over and producing a clear set of results in 
> a fairly short period of time.

Same from me.

> I very much hope that we eventually hear that Pedt is OK.

So do I.

In article ,
 "Wm..."  wrote:

> Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:32 <6eufd0d7xg7f$.1ii7xywgxduee$.dlg@40tude.net> 
> uk.net.news.config John the R-T 
> 
> [uk.rec.cycling added back in as Sara may be reading from there]
> 
> >On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:07:48 +0100, Paul Rudin wrote:
> >
> >> First post of this Fred.
> 
> Shouldn't be necessary for me to say but just in case Fred => thread

That's OK - I worked that one out!
> 
> >But only if you subscribe to uk.net.news.config
> >
> >Followup set to unnc
> 
> That isn't very useful.  The RESULT was posted to
> ===
> uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config, uk.rec.cycling
> ===
> so PaulR's advice was correct if Sara follows any of those groups and 
> she must be following at least one of them if you think about it.

I subscribe to the latter two. The first of which only since the 
moderated group was proposed, but as it's been quite interesting I'll 
probably keep lurking there.

-- 
Married and loving it

"Geoff Berrow"  wrote in message 
news:j8dhb5hge98osl589eiujjipsig4h0mg1f@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:20:42 +0100,
> real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>
>>> Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows what
>>> has happened to him.
>>
>>Surely someone has his phone number, or knows his address, or something?
>
> Yes they do but apparently all efforts have drawn a blank.  It is very
> worrying.

Someone who knows Pedt should contact the police.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:19:01 
 
uk.net.news.config Sara 

Wm:
>> That isn't very useful.  The RESULT was posted to
>> ===
>> uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config, uk.rec.cycling
>> ===
>> so PaulR's advice was correct if Sara follows any of those groups and
>> she must be following at least one of them if you think about it.
>
>I subscribe to the latter two. The first of which only since the
>moderated group was proposed, but as it's been quite interesting I'll
>probably keep lurking there.

Stick around, nothing will happen for months and then something 
interesting happens like the helichopter will need oiling and Martyn 
goes on a biscuit and purple paint strike.

That is infra purple paint BTW, not many people have access to it.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:37:16  
uk.rec.cycling Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>

>On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:04:17 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
>
>[unnc removed]
>
>>On Sep 21, 7:43 pm, Tom Crispin
>><kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>
>>> I hope the new group succeeds.
>>
>>That's down to us to make it so, Tom, so I hope so too.
>>
>>How about a launch party in Londonton?  I'll buy you a beer to
>>compensate for not buying you one on Sunday :-)
>
>We could do launch bike ride, if you have a free day one weekend...
>
>How about this bike ride as a figure of eight:
>http://www.jubileegreenway.org.uk/
>Starting and finishing at Paddington, crossing the Thames four times -
>1 Canary Wharf to Hilton Ferry
>2 Woolwich Ferry
>3 Canary Wharf to Hilton Ferry
>4 Lambeth Bridge

IIRC Paddington is Guy's rail entry point to London so that should tempt 
him.

Guy: your boy seemed a bit bored on the back end of the yellow, do you 
think he would play better if he rode on his own? obviously only soft 
drinks for him if this pans out.

I'm in for exploring the ride.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

"Adam Funk"  wrote in message 
news:v1rmo6xbau.ln2@news.ducksburg.com...
> On 2009-09-21, Ian Jackson wrote:

>> I look forward to seeing the success of the new group.
>
> So do I, of course!

Hopefully it will give the militant cyclists some sanctuary and leave us 
normal cyclists to use uk.rec.cycling.  Assuming the militants keep to the 
moderated group which I suspect they won't.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:13:52 +0100, chris French
 wrote:

>In message , . m 
><nospam@notnominet.name.invalid> writes
>>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:51:10 +0100, Mark
>><i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.  I
>>>got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion with
>>>Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email address but
>>>revoted with my real address when my initial vote was rejected).
>>
>>It was inevitable that any discussions directly with Pedt may not have
>>been available to Jon when he took over the count, however unless
>>there were 93 lost 'no' votes, the outcome would not have been
>>affected.
>>
>>
>True, but Mark says he made a further vote from a valid address which 
>was accepted. This should surely have been included in the votes that 
>Jon worked with. Are you sure it isn't on the vote list Mark?

Absolutely sure.  I have checked through it several times (and once
more again now just in case).  It only shows my rejected vote (the
first in the list).

>It terms of the result it makes no difference. It might be  an issue if 
>the vote has gone awol as that would might indicate some problem with 
>the vote recording process.

I agree it makes no difference to the result but I would be concerned
if there was a fundamental problem with the voting processes, like a
US presidential election ;-)
-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

Molly Mockford  considered Mon, 21
Sep 2009 19:52:59 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>At 19:25:38 on Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Jon Ribbens  
>wrote in 
><result-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090921182538$1085@gradwell.net>:
>
>>RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>
>Thank you, Jon, for taking over and producing a clear set of results in 
>a fairly short period of time.
>
>I very much hope that we eventually hear that Pedt is OK.

<aol>
me too!
</aol>

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:09:38 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

<snip>


>Guy: your boy seemed a bit bored on the back end of the yellow, do you 
>think he would play better if he rode on his own? obviously only soft 
>drinks for him if this pans out.

You're very good on advising people how to look after their families
aren't you.  I recall Aard was very impressed by your interest.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:43:19  
uk.rec.cycling Judith M Smith 

>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:09:38 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>Guy: your boy seemed a bit bored on the back end of the yellow, do you
>>think he would play better if he rode on his own? obviously only soft
>>drinks for him if this pans out.
>
>You're very good on advising people how to look after their families
>aren't you.  I recall Aard was very impressed by your interest.

Pass

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 22 Sep 2009 Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in
news:vmihb5hqr4kgt9gs6tbca272elflsk9cbt@4ax.com: 

> I agree it makes no difference to the result but I would be
> concerned if there was a fundamental problem with the voting
> processes, like a US presidential election ;-)

If you still have a copy of the ack then send it to John and the 
committee and we can have a look.

1 vote either way isn't going to change the result so unless it looks 
like we could have missed 90odd other votes the same way it won't delay 
anything.

-- 
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:05:58 
 uk.net.news.config 
Graham Drabble 

>On 22 Sep 2009 Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in
>news:vmihb5hqr4kgt9gs6tbca272elflsk9cbt@4ax.com:
>
>> I agree it makes no difference to the result but I would be
>> concerned if there was a fundamental problem with the voting
>> processes, like a US presidential election ;-)
>
>If you still have a copy of the ack then send it to John and the
>committee and we can have a look.

Personally I wouldn't bother.

>1 vote either way isn't going to change the result so unless it looks
>like we could have missed 90odd other votes the same way it won't delay
>anything.

Some people, it appears, don't have sufficient fingers and toes.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:06:28 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:05:58 
> uk.net.news.config 
>Graham Drabble 
>
>>On 22 Sep 2009 Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in
>>news:vmihb5hqr4kgt9gs6tbca272elflsk9cbt@4ax.com:
>>
>>> I agree it makes no difference to the result but I would be
>>> concerned if there was a fundamental problem with the voting
>>> processes, like a US presidential election ;-)
>>
>>If you still have a copy of the ack then send it to John and the
>>committee and we can have a look.
>
>Personally I wouldn't bother.

It's not IMHO.  Just something to watch out for in the future.
-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

On 2009-09-22, Anthony R. Gold  wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:25:38 +0100, Jon Ribbens 
> wrote:
>> YES beat NO by a majority of 104 votes. For group passage, there must be 
>> 12 more YES votes than NO votes. Accordingly, the proposal PASSES.
>
> Great work Jon.  The vote handling systems that allowed someone else to
> jump in and still generate results in a very few days is a tribute to the
> planning and improvements since the Committee election of 7 years ago.

Thankyou!

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:42:30  
uk.net.news.config Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid>

>It's not IMHO.  Just something to watch out for in the future.

We watch each other more carefully than you might think.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> said:

> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:55:02 +0100, "kat" 
> wrote:
>
>> Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:19:05 +0100, Geoff Berrow
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:51:10 +0100, Mark
>>>> <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I hope it will work out for the best.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do admit to be disappointed, however, that my vote was rejected.
>>>>> I got the immpression that it would be counted after a discussion
>>>>> with Pedt.  (I initially voted through an anonymising email
>>>>> address but revoted with my real address when my initial vote was
>>>>> rejected).
>>>>
>>>> Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows
>>>> what has happened to him.
>>>
>>> This was before he disappeared and I would have expected in any case
>>> my vote not to have been "lost".  Other votes have been counted, why
>>> not mine?  My corrected vote was sent to the correct email address
>>> and I got a formal acknowledgement.
>>
>> Is your corrected vote in the list of accepted votes?
>
> No.  I wouldn't have complained that my vote was not counted it it had
> been!

You might have missed it, it was worth a check.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On 2009-09-22, Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
> This was before he disappeared and I would have expected in any case
> my vote not to have been "lost".  Other votes have been counted, why
> not mine?  My corrected vote was sent to the correct email address and
> I got a formal acknowledgement.

Do you mean you sent a vote to the @vote.ukvoting email address and
it isn't listed in the results at all? If so, please email me letting
me know the address you voted from (and if possible, the date and time
you sent it) and I'll have a look into it.

The @sneakemail vote being rejected is no slur against you by the way,
it is not an accusation of fraud or any sort of misbehaviour. If I had
been going through the usual process of contacting some voters
manually to clear up any queries then it may well have ended up being
counted, but given the circumstances I was trying to get a result out
quickly, and with the margin between YES and NO being so large it
seemed to me that it would have been a waste of everyone's time to
faff around further.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:30:17 +0100, Wm... wrote:

>>But only if you subscribe to uk.net.news.config
>>
>>Followup set to unnc
> 
> That isn't very useful.  The RESULT was posted to
> ===
> uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config, uk.rec.cycling
> ===

My apologies.  I followed the fred upwards but arrived at the wrong
starting post.

-- 
John the R-T
Do NOT reply to the heypete address.  Reply to is valid
http://www.john-the-r-t.co.uk/ Cruise and Family site.
http://john-the-r-t.110mb.com/ - Annexe.

On 22 Sep, 12:30, Geoff Berrow  wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:20:42 퍝,
>
> real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
> >> Did you miss the bit about Pedt having disappeared?  No one knows what
> >> has happened to him.
>
> >Surely someone has his phone number, or knows his address, or something?
>
> Yes they do but apparently all efforts have drawn a blank.  It is very
> worrying.

Well, Pedt, if you're out there reading this, many thanks for all your
hard work and I hope things are OK with you.

On 21 Sep, 19:25, Jon Ribbens  wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>
> Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24

Thank you very much Jon. This is really excellent news. It is
fantastic to see that people interested in cycling and friendly banter
and chat between cyclists really do make up the majority of posters
(and lurkers) on the group, and that attempts to pervert the vote by
canvassing votes from groups that really shouldn't care whether or not
urcm is created failed miserably. Hopefully we will now have a group
like the urc of old, without the vile personal attacks.

Rudi

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:18:54 -0500, Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

>but given the circumstances I was trying to get a result out
>quickly, and with the margin between YES and NO being so large it
>seemed to me that it would have been a waste of everyone's time to
>faff around further.

IMO the correct and logical strategy, and thanks again.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:46:31 
 
uk.net.news.config RudiL 

>On 21 Sep, 19:25, Jon Ribbens  wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>>
>> Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>
>> Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
>
>Thank you very much Jon. This is really excellent news. It is
>fantastic to see that people interested in cycling and friendly banter
>and chat between cyclists really do make up the majority of posters
>(and lurkers) on the group, and that attempts to pervert the vote by
>canvassing votes from groups that really shouldn't care whether or not
>urcm is created failed miserably. Hopefully we will now have a group
>like the urc of old, without the vile personal attacks.

That isn't under Jon's control, Rudi.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:17:10  
uk.net.news.config . m <nospam@notnominet.name.invalid>

>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:18:54 -0500, Jon Ribbens
><jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>but given the circumstances I was trying to get a result out
>>quickly, and with the margin between YES and NO being so large it
>>seemed to me that it would have been a waste of everyone's time to
>>faff around further.
>
>IMO the correct and logical strategy, and thanks again.

I thought I had already said this, I agree.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Quoting  Mark  :
>I was not suggesting that any action be taken, except perhaps for the
>votetakers to ensure that this cannot happen again.

Mmm. That a complete hash has been made of the first group vote for _four
years_ [1] is not very encouraging.

[1] assuming ukvoting's Web pages are accurate.
-- 
David Damerell  Kill the tomato!
Yesterday was Tuesday, September.
Today is Wednesday, September.
Tomorrow will be Thursday, September.

On 22 Sep 2009 20:33:32 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>Mmm. That a complete hash has been made of the first group vote for _four
>years_ [1] is not very encouraging.

I'm completely at a loss as to how you can draw such a conclusion.  

The process was perfect and demonstrates that in the case of an
undesirable and unexpected event, plans are in place for completion.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:38:47  
uk.net.news.config . m <nospam@notnominet.name.invalid>

>On 22 Sep 2009 20:33:32 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
>
>>Mmm. That a complete hash has been made of the first group vote for _four
>>years_ [1] is not very encouraging.
>
>I'm completely at a loss as to how you can draw such a conclusion.
>
>The process was perfect and demonstrates that in the case of an
>undesirable and unexpected event, plans are in place for completion.

Quite.  I see robustness.

Maybe DavidD is gnew to the idea of wot we have been donning for a 
dec-ard or wots the ten year thing.  Yes, I mean that.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 22 Sep 2009 20:33:32 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>That a complete hash has been made of the first group vote for _four
>years_ [1] is not very encouraging.

Hash?  I would not say so.  Anything that depends on a single
volunteer is at risk of the volunteer becoming unexpectedly
unavailable; when it became clear that this was the case another
volunteer stepped up to the plate.

There never was any deadline to meet.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:09:38 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Guy: your boy seemed a bit bored on the back end of the yellow, do you 
>think he would play better if he rode on his own? obviously only soft 
>drinks for him if this pans out.

Feh, he'd been sitting there while I talked to my mates for half an
hour and the crossed arms pose is just an affectation, he thinks it's
cool to ride the tandem hands off.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:48:52  
uk.rec.cycling "Just zis Guy, you know?" 

>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:09:38 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>Guy: your boy seemed a bit bored on the back end of the yellow, do you
>>think he would play better if he rode on his own? obviously only soft
>>drinks for him if this pans out.
>
>Feh, he'd been sitting there while I talked to my mates for half an
>hour and the crossed arms pose is just an affectation, he thinks it's
>cool to ride the tandem hands off.

Hmmn, Tigger says he is Eeyore then.  He seemed a bright enough boy to 
me.  Just bored when he got what he asked for.  You could do worse than 
let him loose with a day pass to London's museums.  That way he'd have 
to decide what was important to him and plan ahead.  mum or dad will 
have to pick up at some point of course, I know that if I was given an 
open ticket to the BM at your lad's age I'd be gone for days.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

In article <I+d02Zr0fOuKFwgf@[127.0.0.1]>, tcnw71@blackhole.do-not-
spam.me.uk says...
> >If you still have a copy of the ack then send it to John and the
> >committee and we can have a look.
> 
> Personally I wouldn't bother.
> 

We should. If an ack has been received then his vote should have been 
accessible to John when he took over.

A missing vote signifies a bug in the system which, although 
insignificant in this case, could be more serious under a slightly 
different set of circumstances. Any suggestion that a vote has 
dissapeared should be investigated, imo.

Unless of course, you're of the pessimistic opinion that this was the 
last great uk.* vote.

-- 
Alan LeHun

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:15:39  
uk.net.news.config Alan LeHun 

>In article <I+d02Zr0fOuKFwgf@[127.0.0.1]>, tcnw71@blackhole.do-not-
>spam.me.uk says...
>> >If you still have a copy of the ack then send it to John and the
>> >committee and we can have a look.
>>
>> Personally I wouldn't bother.
>>
>
>We should. If an ack has been received then his vote should have been
>accessible to John when he took over.

Jon not John

>A missing vote signifies a bug in the system which, although
>insignificant in this case, could be more serious under a slightly
>different set of circumstances. Any suggestion that a vote has
>dissapeared should be investigated, imo.

I am sure UKV will examine their navels; guys, you don't want fluff in 
that bit of your body when you meet a boy or girl you like.

>Unless of course, you're of the pessimistic opinion that this was the
>last great uk.* vote.

Quite the opposite.  This vote says to me UKV is functioning very well.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Quoting  Just zis Guy, you know? :
> wrote:
>>That a complete hash has been made of the first group vote for _four
>>years_ [1] is not very encouraging.
>Hash?  I would not say so.  Anything that depends on a single
>volunteer is at risk of the volunteer becoming unexpectedly
>unavailable;

Yes, systems with an obvious single point of failure tend to go badly
wrong when it fails. That is a reason to eliminate obvious single points
of failure. For example, there is a deputy Control.

>There never was any deadline to meet.

It seems that over a hundred people wanted their new newsgroup; it was
delayed for several weeks, in spite of this being the only group creation
activity for four years. Let us hope in the next four years UKV can
improve their procedures.
-- 
David Damerell  Distortion Field!
Yesterday was Wednesday, September.
Today is Thursday, September.
Tomorrow will be Friday, September.

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:08:55 <d8q*j1LRs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> 
uk.net.news.config David Damerell 

>It seems that over a hundred people wanted their new newsgroup; it was
>delayed for several weeks, in spite of this being the only group creation
>activity for four years. Let us hope in the next four years UKV can
>improve their procedures.

You are throwing meat at UKV?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 2009-09-23, David Damerell  wrote:
> It seems that over a hundred people wanted their new newsgroup; it was
> delayed for several weeks, in spite of this being the only group creation
> activity for four years. Let us hope in the next four years UKV can
> improve their procedures.

I do not think that the UKVoting procedures require any change.

On Sep 22, 7:35 pm, Jon Ribbens  wrote:
> On 2009-09-23, David Damerell  wrote:
>
> > It seems that over a hundred people wanted their new newsgroup; it was
> > delayed for several weeks, in spite of this being the only group creation
> > activity for four years. Let us hope in the next four years UKV can
> > improve their procedures.
>
> I do not think that the UKVoting procedures require any change.

It seems to me that David has a valid point. Sure, it is only usenet
and doesn't really matter, but it was only after several weeks of
patient waiting, followed by a few increasingly frustrated enquiries,
that anyone seemed to bother doing anything at all about the fact that
the official vote-taker had apparently gone AWOL for a month.

James

On 23 Sep 2009 02:08:55 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>Yes, systems with an obvious single point of failure tend to go badly
>wrong when it fails. That is a reason to eliminate obvious single points
>of failure. For example, there is a deputy Control.

And in this case someone else picked up the ball.  You appear to be
criticising them for not having a procedure to handle a situation
which has never come up before.

I don't think there are many Yes voters who are much more keen than me
to see the group created, but I don't find the delay as much of a
problem as you seem to.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:55:00 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Hmmn, Tigger says he is Eeyore then.  He seemed a bright enough boy to 
>me.  Just bored when he got what he asked for.  You could do worse than 
>let him loose with a day pass to London's museums.  That way he'd have 
>to decide what was important to him and plan ahead.  mum or dad will 
>have to pick up at some point of course, I know that if I was given an 
>open ticket to the BM at your lad's age I'd be gone for days.

Been there, done that (several times).  His favourite is the natural
history museum although the basement of the science museum is also
very popular.

On 21 Sep, 19:43, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:25:38 퍝, Jon Ribbens
>
>  wrote:
>
> [uk.rec.cycling put back into the NG line.  It is customary to warn
> posters if follow-ups have been set]
>
> >RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>
> >Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> >Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
>
> I hope the new group succeeds.
>
Why would somebody who is not the slightest bit interested in a
censored newsgroup bother to vote? Wouldn't this fact skew the vote in
its favour anyway?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's newsgroup is another man's censorship.

On 23 Sep 2009 02:08:55 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>It seems that over a hundred people wanted their new newsgroup; it was
>delayed for several weeks, in spite of this being the only group creation
>activity for four years. Let us hope in the next four years UKV can
>improve their procedures.


Feel free to volunteer to help.

As far as I am concerned the system worked as designed and I am very
disappointed that you feel the need to make these remarks especially
when we are not in possession of all the facts.


-- 
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Put thecat out to email

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:56 -0500, Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2009-09-23, David Damerell  wrote:
>> It seems that over a hundred people wanted their new newsgroup; it was
>> delayed for several weeks, in spite of this being the only group creation
>> activity for four years. Let us hope in the next four years UKV can
>> improve their procedures.
>
> I do not think that the UKVoting procedures require any change.

When reading about the experience of Mark it appears possible that the
votetaker may have been engaged in some out-of-channel correspondence that
never have reached the backup systems.  That may not show any failing in
the procedures but perhaps a human failure to follow them.  Anyway it does
seem sufficiently interesting to make an investigation by UKV into his
missing vote worthwhile.

Tony

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:18:54 -0500, Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

>On 2009-09-22, Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>> This was before he disappeared and I would have expected in any case
>> my vote not to have been "lost".  Other votes have been counted, why
>> not mine?  My corrected vote was sent to the correct email address and
>> I got a formal acknowledgement.
>
>Do you mean you sent a vote to the @vote.ukvoting email address and
>it isn't listed in the results at all? If so, please email me letting
>me know the address you voted from (and if possible, the date and time
>you sent it) and I'll have a look into it.

I sent the corrected vote to the query address as requested by Pedt.

-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:12:47 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>When reading about the experience of Mark it appears possible that the
>votetaker may have been engaged in some out-of-channel correspondence that
>never have reached the backup systems. 

Yes, which is probably what I'd expect.  I'm not sure if it would
really be of benefit to have copies of all validation correspondence
'just in case'.

> That may not show any failing in
>the procedures but perhaps a human failure to follow them.  Anyway it does
>seem sufficiently interesting to make an investigation by UKV into his
>missing vote worthwhile.

It's probably the case that should Jon have chosen to do so, and
revalidated all votes, he would have undergone the same process with
Mark as Pedt did, and consequently the vote would not have been
missed.  Jon did state however, that it was a quick job in order to
get a result.  Should the margin have not been so great, I'd expect
he'd have gone through all the returns in greater detail.

On 2009-09-23, David Damerell wrote:

> Quoting  Just zis Guy, you know? :

>>There never was any deadline to meet.
>
> It seems that over a hundred people wanted their new newsgroup; it was
> delayed for several weeks, in spite of this being the only group creation
> activity for four years. Let us hope in the next four years UKV can
> improve their procedures.

I have to admit, I was pleasantly surprised that over a hundred people
wanted it.  The delay of several weeks wasn't that significant
compared to the delays that the usual suspects were trying to create
with petty objections and canvassing.

In article ,
.m    wrote:
>On 22 Sep 2009 20:33:32 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
>>Mmm. That a complete hash has been made of the first group vote for _four
>>years_ [1] is not very encouraging.
>
>I'm completely at a loss as to how you can draw such a conclusion.  

I think David is referring to the long delays at many stages of the
process and particularly in counting the votes.  My first email to
Control was on the 20th of May, _over four months ago_.

I have counted up where the time went.  Of these four months so far[1]:
 * 9 days were spent by me
 * 5 days were spent by the proposed moderation panel
 * 13 days were spent on public discussion in unnc and urc
 * 13 days were spent by Control
 * 33 days were spent by the first VT before he went missing
 * 11 days were due directly to the first VT going missing
 * 13 days were then spent by UKVoting and/or the replacement VT
 * 32 days were a consequence of rules in the Guidelines

Or to look at it another way:
 * 27 days for people and discussion associated with the proposed group
 * 24 days due to the exceptional event of the VT going missing
 * 78 days for the USENET UK establishment

Or to look at it another way, given that the useful discussion had
finished by the 25th of June:
 * 35 days to come up with a good proposal
 * 95 days to vote on it

Personally I think it's absurd that it can take over four months to
create a moderated newsgroup which (as evidenced by the vote) is so
badly needed.

[1] This count includes events up to the end of the 5-day post-results
 waiting period, and assumes that the group will be created on the 
 26th of September.  There was quite a bit of manual adding-up so I
 may be a day or two off.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

James wrote:
> On Sep 22, 7:35 pm, Jon Ribbens <jon+use...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 2009-09-23, David Damerell  wrote:
>>
>>> It seems that over a hundred people wanted their new newsgroup; it was
>>> delayed for several weeks, in spite of this being the only group creation
>>> activity for four years. Let us hope in the next four years UKV can
>>> improve their procedures.
>> I do not think that the UKVoting procedures require any change.
> 
> It seems to me that David has a valid point. Sure, it is only usenet
> and doesn't really matter, but it was only after several weeks of
> patient waiting, followed by a few increasingly frustrated enquiries,
> that anyone seemed to bother doing anything at all about the fact that
> the official vote-taker had apparently gone AWOL for a month.
> 
> James

And?

It's not as if anyone is being paid for this work, the world will not 
end due to a small delay of an unspecified timescale for completion. 
Eventually the vote was asked for then counted.
The system works but just not as fast as some might have wished.

What do people want ferferksake? John Snow and his swingometer?

Anyway it was all supposed to be rigged and everything held under total 
control of HAL -- sorry Chiark-- to ensure the vote went the way it was 
supposed to as apparently everyone involved were all chummy.
Deep Thought has spoken and this time the answer wasn't 42 so the 
question must have been the right one at last. Like Deep Thought, it's 
just taken a while.

So, when's the celebratory CM/peloton/primary position pedants ride?


-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Ian Jackson  said:

> In article ,
> .m    wrote:
>> On 22 Sep 2009 20:33:32 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
>>  wrote:
>>> Mmm. That a complete hash has been made of the first group vote for
>>> _four years_ [1] is not very encouraging.
>>
>> I'm completely at a loss as to how you can draw such a conclusion.
>
> I think David is referring to the long delays at many stages of the
> process and particularly in counting the votes.  My first email to
> Control was on the 20th of May, _over four months ago_.
>
> I have counted up where the time went.  Of these four months so
> far[1]:
> * 9 days were spent by me
> * 5 days were spent by the proposed moderation panel
> * 13 days were spent on public discussion in unnc and urc
> * 13 days were spent by Control
> * 33 days were spent by the first VT before he went missing
> * 11 days were due directly to the first VT going missing
> * 13 days were then spent by UKVoting and/or the replacement VT
> * 32 days were a consequence of rules in the Guidelines
>
> Or to look at it another way:
> * 27 days for people and discussion associated with the proposed group
> * 24 days due to the exceptional event of the VT going missing
> * 78 days for the USENET UK establishment
>
> Or to look at it another way, given that the useful discussion had
> finished by the 25th of June:
> * 35 days to come up with a good proposal
> * 95 days to vote on it
>
> Personally I think it's absurd that it can take over four months to
> create a moderated newsgroup which (as evidenced by the vote) is so
> badly needed.
>
> [1] This count includes events up to the end of the 5-day post-results
> waiting period, and assumes that the group will be created on the
> 26th of September.  There was quite a bit of manual adding-up so I
> may be a day or two off.

The first group proposal in which I was involved took over 3 months from 
first RFD to creation; that was without exceptional events of missing vote 
takers, and doesn't include the time taken for discussion by the people 
involved prior to  requesting the RFD, or any time that was taken discussing 
it with Control before posting.  It seemed ridiculously long to me then, but 
now I see why.

There will always be time taken for discussion, there are rules to allow for 
time for everyone to take part.  Ditto if a vote is required, again, there 
will be an apparently long time for people to vote as not everyone can do it 
the moment the CFV is out.

Every vote is different.  This one had a high turn out, and we can assume 
Pedt did take the trouble to verify votes and voters, as there had been 
suggestions that there could be improper canvassing, and vote fraud.  There 
will always be a short delay between the publication of the result, and the 
creation, to allow us all to review the result and object if we have cause 
to believe there is a problem.  As Jon has just given us the result without 
more than a cursory check that there appears to be nothing that could afect 
the result, it isn't surprising there is at least one query.

On top of that every one involved is a volunteer doing this in their spare 
time.  They take holidays, they get sick ( we know Pedt got sick), real life 
kicks in.

But then, you know all this, don't you.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

Doug wrote:
> On 21 Sep, 19:43, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:25:38 +0100, Jon Ribbens
>>
>>  wrote:
>>
>> [uk.rec.cycling put back into the NG line.  It is customary to warn
>> posters if follow-ups have been set]
>>
>>> RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>>> Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>> Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
>> I hope the new group succeeds.
>>
> Why would somebody who is not the slightest bit interested in a
> censored newsgroup bother to vote? Wouldn't this fact skew the vote in
> its favour anyway?
> 


We have been informed that all the 'fuckwits' will clear off and leave 
urc to 'sensible' people. To that end it is important for urcm to be 
created or then 'fuckwits' won't fuck off.
That it gives the 'fuckwits' somewhere cosy to sit and pop in to urc to 
feed the flames now and then is a bonus.


-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

On 2009-09-23, Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>>Do you mean you sent a vote to the @vote.ukvoting email address and
>>it isn't listed in the results at all? If so, please email me letting
>>me know the address you voted from (and if possible, the date and time
>>you sent it) and I'll have a look into it.
>
> I sent the corrected vote to the query address as requested by Pedt.

OK thanks, that does explain why I didn't have a copy of it, and
hence why it was not in the results. Apologies for that.

On 2009-09-23, Anthony R. Gold  wrote:
> When reading about the experience of Mark it appears possible that the
> votetaker may have been engaged in some out-of-channel correspondence that
> never have reached the backup systems.  That may not show any failing in
> the procedures but perhaps a human failure to follow them.  Anyway it does
> seem sufficiently interesting to make an investigation by UKV into his
> missing vote worthwhile.

Indeed. Mark has now said that Pedt asked him to send the ballot paper
directly to him, which resolves the mystery. All ballot papers should
of course always be sent to the @vote.ukvoting address, and Pedt
shouldn't really have asked him to send it directly.

The lack of recording of emails sent directly between the votetaker
and voters is unfortunate, but I don't think there's anything that
can be done in practice about that that wouldn't be more cumbersome
than beneficial.

On 23 Sep 2009 11:46:21 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>I think David is referring to the long delays at many stages of the
>process and particularly in counting the votes.

In terms of good governance you have to expect delays.  You caused a
number of these initially by not listening to the advice given to you.
It's a process, not a race, and the process, overall, is not broken.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:55:00 +0100, "Wm..."
>  wrote:
> 
>> Hmmn, Tigger says he is Eeyore then.  He seemed a bright enough boy to 
>> me.  Just bored when he got what he asked for.  You could do worse than 
>> let him loose with a day pass to London's museums.  That way he'd have 
>> to decide what was important to him and plan ahead.  mum or dad will 
>> have to pick up at some point of course, I know that if I was given an 
>> open ticket to the BM at your lad's age I'd be gone for days.
> 
> Been there, done that (several times).  His favourite is the natural
> history museum although the basement of the science museum is also
> very popular.

The basement was my favourite place when I were a lad* -- where else 
could you find so many things to press, turn, twiddle with and it had 
the coal mine.


*"Here's enough for a Red Rover, here's your sandwiches, see you later"
-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:55:00 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:48:52  
>uk.rec.cycling "Just zis Guy, you know?" 
>
>>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:09:38 +0100, "Wm...the lying fuckwit"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Guy: your boy seemed a bit bored on the back end of the yellow, do you
>>>think he would play better if he rode on his own? obviously only soft
>>>drinks for him if this pans out.
>>
>>Feh, he'd been sitting there while I talked to my mates for half an
>>hour and the crossed arms pose is just an affectation, he thinks it's
>>cool to ride the tandem hands off.
>
>Hmmn, Tigger says he is Eeyore then.  He seemed a bright enough boy to 
>me.  Just bored when he got what he asked for.  You could do worse than 
>let him loose with a day pass to London's museums.  That way he'd have 
>to decide what was important to him and plan ahead.  mum or dad will 
>have to pick up at some point of course, I know that if I was given an 
>open ticket to the BM at your lad's age I'd be gone for days.


You really are a fuckwit Tarr  - do you have  any kids of your own? -
I will bet no - something to do with Darwin.

What makes you think that anyone is going to be interested in your
advice on bringing up their kids.  If anything they may be slightly
concerned - as Aard said: "You're beginning to come across a little
'strange', wm."

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

In article ,
.m    wrote:
>In terms of good governance you have to expect delays.  You caused a
>number of these initially by not listening to the advice given to you.

Please explain exactly what delays I caused by not listening to
correct advice.  Feel free to quote any emails between me and the
committee, if you grant me the same courtesy.

>It's a process, not a race, and the process, overall, is not broken.

4 months to create a badly-needed group is broken.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

Jon Ribbens  wrote:
>
>Indeed. Mark has now said that Pedt asked him to send the ballot paper
>directly to him, which resolves the mystery. All ballot papers should
>of course always be sent to the @vote.ukvoting address, and Pedt
>shouldn't really have asked him to send it directly.

I voted from Gmail, which doesn't record the IP address of the machine
from which I was accessing their web interface, and was asked to
re-vote:

"Can you please re-vote through either your ISP or a webmail service that
does not hide your IP address such as Hotmail. You must use the same
ballot paper. You may alternatively contact the votetaker directly to
resolve the issue."

In my case I used the same ballot paper and re-sent from an alternative
address to the voting address, but I can see why Mark might not have
done, especially as the query address follows in the next paragraph.

-- 
eleanor@the-blairs.co.uk                          http://lnr.livejournal.com/

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:45:02  
uk.net.news.config Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>

>So, when's the celebratory CM/peloton/primary position pedants ride?

d'ya mean those for or against?  the N voters will make a sorry bunch if 
shown a bicycle with the noted exception of TomC.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:46:21 <fdg*F8NRs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> 
uk.net.news.config Ian Jackson 

>Personally I think it's absurd that it can take over four months to
>create a moderated newsgroup which (as evidenced by the vote) is so
>badly needed.

there was and is another way, see what happened in the case of 
uk.net.providers.gradwell recently.

if you are going to throw mud throw it at the right people, please.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:21:54 <slrnhbk4nf.kv4.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net> 
uk.net.news.config Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>

>On 2009-09-23, Anthony R. Gold  wrote:
>> When reading about the experience of Mark it appears possible that the
>> votetaker may have been engaged in some out-of-channel correspondence that
>> never have reached the backup systems.  That may not show any failing in
>> the procedures but perhaps a human failure to follow them.  Anyway it does
>> seem sufficiently interesting to make an investigation by UKV into his
>> missing vote worthwhile.
>
>Indeed. Mark has now said that Pedt asked him to send the ballot paper
>directly to him, which resolves the mystery. All ballot papers should
>of course always be sent to the @vote.ukvoting address, and Pedt
>shouldn't really have asked him to send it directly.

In defence of Pedt, it may be that he wanted to see where exactly Mark 
was sending from for checking purposes rather than taking the vote 
person to person, which I think is against the rules and so the vote 
wouldn't count anyway.

>The lack of recording of emails sent directly between the votetaker
>and voters is unfortunate, but I don't think there's anything that
>can be done in practice about that that wouldn't be more cumbersome
>than beneficial.

I exchanged a few e-mails with Pedt, mainly about whether I should vote 
as Lou Knee or similar.  I decided to vote as myself after all.

Considering the exchange I had with Pedt at the time I find it difficult 
to believe that Mark thinks he was voting validly by sending Pedt an 
e-mail.

Perhaps Mark feels he was cheated?  Given the RESULT I doubt it.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:52:28  
uk.net.news.config Adam Funk 

>On 2009-09-23, David Damerell wrote:
>
>> Quoting  Just zis Guy, you know? :
>
>>>There never was any deadline to meet.
>>
>> It seems that over a hundred people wanted their new newsgroup; it was
>> delayed for several weeks, in spite of this being the only group creation
>> activity for four years. Let us hope in the next four years UKV can
>> improve their procedures.
>
>I have to admit, I was pleasantly surprised that over a hundred people
>wanted it.  The delay of several weeks wasn't that significant
>compared to the delays that the usual suspects were trying to create
>with petty objections and canvassing.

It does expose a rather large hole in the jms / nuxx scheme of things 
doesn't it?

Motorists were meant to flock in and vote against.  They didn't.

Perhaps cyclists and motorists get on better than some might think.  I, 
a cyclist, don't have a problem with motorists in general and presume 
vice versa.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:27:37 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Perhaps cyclists and motorists get on better than some might think.  I, 
>a cyclist, don't have a problem with motorists in general and presume 
>vice versa.

Quite.  I've nothing against cyclists.  They can occasionally take
some time to prize from the tyre tread, but otherwise, they're fine.

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:33:37 <DLk*SJORs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> 
uk.net.news.config Ian Jackson 

>In article ,
>.m    wrote:
>>In terms of good governance you have to expect delays.  You caused a
>>number of these initially by not listening to the advice given to you.
>
>Please explain exactly what delays I caused by not listening to
>correct advice.  Feel free to quote any emails between me and the
>committee, if you grant me the same courtesy.

Martyn (or any other komite) is very unlikely to quote any e-mail he 
received as a komite functionary.  Them is the roolz.  Da e-mail is 
privotski.

In other words, your request is specious and I expect you know that.

>>It's a process, not a race, and the process, overall, is not broken.
>
>4 months to create a badly-needed group is broken.

So you keep on telling us.  Take out the "badly-needed" (very few news 
groups are really needed if you think about it) and we get.

===
4 months to create a group is broken
===

Now ask yourself why it took so long?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 23 Sep 2009 14:33:37 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>>In terms of good governance you have to expect delays.  You caused a
>>number of these initially by not listening to the advice given to you.
>
>Please explain exactly what delays I caused by not listening to
>correct advice.  Feel free to quote any emails between me and the
>committee, if you grant me the same courtesy.

Well I'm not interested in getting into another of your 'who said
what' discussions, or reposting committee emails, but there's enough
public evidence, such as you ignoring the advice given to you by the
likes of Graham and Geoff regarding Binaries (or similar - I've no
time to go back and re-read) to demonstrate that you were equally as
complicit in any delays.  

I'm not using this as a stick to beat you with - simply pointing out
that it's all a part of an (unbroken) process.


>>It's a process, not a race, and the process, overall, is not broken.
>
>4 months to create a badly-needed group is broken.

Not at all.  Groups that are badly needed are created with a Fast
Track very quickly.

On Sep 23, 7:57 pm, "Wm..." 
wrote:

> d'ya mean those for or against?  the N voters will make a sorry bunch if
> shown a bicycle with the noted exception of TomC.

That's a remarkably authoritative statement. Would you care to advise
the group about my cycling habits, in particular?

__
Nige Danton

In article ,
Wm...  wrote:
>Martyn (or any other komite) is very unlikely to quote any e-mail he 
>received as a komite functionary.  Them is the roolz.  Da e-mail is 
>privotski.

That's why I gave permission for him to quote them, if he's willing to
return the favour and allow me to quote his emails so that people get
the full picture.

>4 months to create a group is broken
...
>Now ask yourself why it took so long?

I've just answered that question, upthread, with actual numbers.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

In article <cJRB7+IFyhuKFwxR@[127.0.0.1]>,
Wm...  wrote:
>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:46:21 <fdg*F8NRs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> 
>uk.net.news.config Ian Jackson 
>>Personally I think it's absurd that it can take over four months to
>>create a moderated newsgroup which (as evidenced by the vote) is so
>>badly needed.
>
>there was and is another way, see what happened in the case of 
>uk.net.providers.gradwell recently.

Yes, in that case there were no trolls and kooks to be got rid of.
Obviously a moderated group required because of a trolling problem is
different because the trolls will opposite it, and because some people
oppose almost any moderated group.

If you think I should have done something differently please explain
what.  Should I have asked for a fast track like in the Gradwell case ?
I don't think so !

>if you are going to throw mud throw it at the right people, please.

The trolls are not in a position of authority and stewardship.  The
USENET UK establishment is.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

On 23 Sep 2009 14:37:56 +0100 (BST), Eleanor Blair
 wrote:

>Jon Ribbens  wrote:
>>
>>Indeed. Mark has now said that Pedt asked him to send the ballot paper
>>directly to him, which resolves the mystery. All ballot papers should
>>of course always be sent to the @vote.ukvoting address, and Pedt
>>shouldn't really have asked him to send it directly.
>
>I voted from Gmail, which doesn't record the IP address of the machine
>from which I was accessing their web interface, and was asked to
>re-vote:
>
>"Can you please re-vote through either your ISP or a webmail service that
>does not hide your IP address such as Hotmail. You must use the same
>ballot paper. You may alternatively contact the votetaker directly to
>resolve the issue."
>
>In my case I used the same ballot paper and re-sent from an alternative
>address to the voting address, but I can see why Mark might not have
>done, especially as the query address follows in the next paragraph.

Here is the exact text from the email I received from Pedt:

"As I explained in my original reply, the email system you are sending
through (sneakemail) hides the origin of the vote - in other words,
the originating IP address of the machine used to send the vote.

If I am unable to determine where the vote has come from originally
then I cannot accept it due to the 1 person, 1 vote rule for votes in
the uk.* hierarchy.

If you are able to reply to this email via a different route and
keeping everything intact, then the decision can be reconsidered. The
vote would show up with your Usenet email address. You cannot re-send
to the vote address as the vote has closed and I'm tidying up loose
ends."

I did as he requested and he sent me a formal acknowledgement on the
13th August so I assumed that my vote was cast.  Note that he
specifically stated that I could not use the original voting address.

Also note that my original vote was made before the deadline.
-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:51:17  
uk.rec.cycling Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>

>*"Here's enough for a Red Rover, here's your sandwiches, see you later"

Are parents still allowed to do that?  I think they should be able to.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:06:04  
uk.rec.cycling jms 

>You really are a fuckwit Tarr  - do you have  any kids of your own? -
>I will bet no - something to do with Darwin.

One day you will work out that your criticism of someone actually gives 
them brownie points.  Then you'll stop doing it if you are sensible.

>What makes you think that anyone is going to be interested in your
>advice on bringing up their kids.  If anything they may be slightly
>concerned - as Aard said: "You're beginning to come across a little
>'strange', wm."

Famous last words.

If Guy thought I had made an inappropriate comment about his child I am 
sure he would have told me in very certain terms.  He knows my e-mail 
address works.  He has my phone number.  If he thinks I am a bad person 
I know he will tell me.  I have met the man and the boy, leave it to 
them to say rather than letting your perverted imagination loose, ffs.

Thing is, most people aren't like you.  We don't harbour the bitterness 
that you seem to so enjoy.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 2009-09-23, Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
> If you are able to reply to this email via a different route and
> keeping everything intact, then the decision can be reconsidered. The
> vote would show up with your Usenet email address. You cannot re-send
> to the vote address as the vote has closed and I'm tidying up loose
> ends."
>
> I did as he requested and he sent me a formal acknowledgement on the
> 13th August so I assumed that my vote was cast.  Note that he
> specifically stated that I could not use the original voting address.
>
> Also note that my original vote was made before the deadline.

Oh, OK, in which case nobody at all did anything wrong at all ;-)

If I had been doing the full vote verification procedure I would have
sent you a similar email, you would presumably have replied, and your
vote would've been counted (and shown in the results as coming from
the sneakemail address). There is no vote that is missing from the
results.

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:22:20 
 
uk.net.news.config Nige Danton 

>On Sep 23, 7:57 pm, "Wm..." 
>wrote:
>
>> d'ya mean those for or against?  the N voters will make a sorry bunch if
>> shown a bicycle with the noted exception of TomC.
>
>That's a remarkably authoritative statement.

Yes, I have a lot of votes to support me.

> Would you care to advise
>the group about my cycling habits, in particular?

No.  You are, however, free to do so yourself.

I am not generally in favour of the nun habit but each person has their 
own little fancy so tell us what yours is.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wm... wrote:
> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:45:02  
> uk.net.news.config Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>
> 
>> So, when's the celebratory CM/peloton/primary position pedants ride?
> 
> d'ya mean those for or against?  the N voters will make a sorry bunch if 
> shown a bicycle with the noted exception of TomC.
> 

For - as there appears to be more chance of a bike ride.
Plus Paddington is only about 25 mins from me (or 45 if I drive).
-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Eleanor Blair wrote:
> Jon Ribbens  wrote:
>> Indeed. Mark has now said that Pedt asked him to send the ballot paper
>> directly to him, which resolves the mystery. All ballot papers should
>> of course always be sent to the @vote.ukvoting address, and Pedt
>> shouldn't really have asked him to send it directly.
> 
> I voted from Gmail, which doesn't record the IP address of the machine
> from which I was accessing their web interface, and was asked to
> re-vote:
> 
> "Can you please re-vote through either your ISP or a webmail service that
> does not hide your IP address such as Hotmail. You must use the same
> ballot paper. You may alternatively contact the votetaker directly to
> resolve the issue."
> 
> In my case I used the same ballot paper and re-sent from an alternative
> address to the voting address, but I can see why Mark might not have
> done, especially as the query address follows in the next paragraph.
> 

Mine - as vaguely posted here -- is a Snotmail account so I used another 
email address instead.


-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Wm... wrote:
> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:51:17  
> uk.rec.cycling Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>
> 
>> *"Here's enough for a Red Rover, here's your sandwiches, see you later"
> 
> Are parents still allowed to do that?  I think they should be able to.
> 

Mine didn't have much of an option - it would have been that or me 
coming home covered in mud - again.
I didn't take to cycling in to the centre of London until I was quite 
old -- about 13 or 14.
Not really anything to do with parental control, more of a kid that was 
never at home as there was to much playing around to be done.
Some things never change - we only had the occasional dumped car to play 
with, the only things that were twoc'ed were mopeds. Mind you, I'm glad 
we didn't have disposable lighters then - there wouldn't be much left 
for the modern kids to set light to.

-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:41:23 <slrnhbkct0.kv4.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net> 
uk.net.news.config Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>

>There is no vote that is missing from the
>results.

Quite.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:29:33  
uk.net.news.config Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid>

>Also note that my original vote was made before the deadline.

The thing that puzzles me is why you are making such a big deal about 
this.


-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:52:17  
uk.net.news.config . m <nospam@notnominet.name.invalid>

>On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:27:37 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps cyclists and motorists get on better than some might think.  I,
>>a cyclist, don't have a problem with motorists in general and presume
>>vice versa.
>
>Quite.  I've nothing against cyclists.  They can occasionally take
>some time to prize from the tyre tread, but otherwise, they're fine.

<fx:grin>

I still reckon a trials bike will get to places you can't go, mind you, 
horses are good too :)

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:18:22 <YHe*lUORs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> 
uk.net.news.config Ian Jackson 

>If you think I should have done something differently please explain
>what.  Should I have asked for a fast track like in the Gradwell case ?
>I don't think so !

i think a fast track may have worked, actually.

Wm:
>>if you are going to throw mud throw it at the right people, please.
>
>The trolls are not in a position of authority and stewardship.  The
>USENET UK establishment is.

you are, I think, choosing to fall out of favour with the good people 
rather than blaming the bad people.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

In article ,
.m    wrote:
>Well I'm not interested in getting into another of your 'who said
>what' discussions, or reposting committee emails, but there's enough
>public evidence, such as you ignoring the advice given to you by the
>likes of Graham and Geoff regarding Binaries (or similar - I've no
>time to go back and re-read) to demonstrate that you were equally as
>complicit in any delays.  

Bullshit. 
I am not responsible for more than 10 days of the 129 this has taken.

I did have a disagreement with the committee about the exact wording
of the prohibition against binaries.  That disagreement:

 (a) did not contribute to any delay because I conceded almost
     immediately (the very same day);

 (b) was in any case not a correct piece of advice from the committee,
     but rather an unjustifiable piece of obstructionism and in my
     view an abuse of authority.  

     The committee insisted without any basis on the use of a specific
     (and verbose) wording which is not mandated by any official
     documentation.  When I challenged this asking for an explanation
     of why it should be done that way, I was told that the reason was
     `you want your newsgroup created'.  Ie, an implied threat.  I saw
     the writing on the wall and caved.

The reason you don't want to get into "who said what" discussions is
that I am right and your allegation (that my refusal to take advice
caused the delays) is utterly wrong.

I had two substantive disagreements with the committee, neither of
which contributed to the delay (the other was about the wording of the
2nd RFD SoD's comments about the committee's comments about
crossposting); in the case above because I caved immediately, and in
the latter case because the disagreement took entirely within the
mandatory 2nd RFD 10-day waiting period when nothing else was going
on.  Again I caved.

A delay was introduced by Control, right at the beginning, who
unjustifiably rejected my first initial RFD on the grounds that
 (a) it should be ready to be voted on and therefore should 
     contain the list of moderators; and
 (b) I requested crossposting of the discussion to urc.

Both of these objections are specifically contradicted by the
Guidelines, but obviously I didn't want to make a fuss at the time,
because I didn't want to antagonise the committee, so after a very
brief discussion in which the Committee failed to issue an appropriate
direction to Control, I went away and posted an informal pre-RFD in
uk.rec.cycling to select the moderators.

In the meantime the establishment came to accept that I was entitled
to ask for crossposting of my RFD - but this is a bit of a sore point.
I see that this very discussion itself had an incorrect Followup-To,
as did 2nd RFD (causing some confusion).  I assume this is because the
technical machinery used by Control does not conform to the rules laid
out in the Guidelines.

>Not at all.  Groups that are badly needed are created with a Fast
>Track very quickly.

So you think I should have asked for a Fast Track ?

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

On 23 Sep 2009 16:33:54 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>Bullshit. 
>I am not responsible for more than 10 days of the 129 this has taken.

So you _admit_ to being a part of the delay.  I rest my case.

[snip wibblings]

>The reason you don't want to get into "who said what" discussions is
>that I am right and your allegation (that my refusal to take advice
>caused the delays) is utterly wrong.

No.  The reason I'm not indulging you is simply because you appear to
have the potential to become a Cummins.

[snip further wibblings]

In article <QQs*4-ORs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
	Ian Jackson  wrote:
>
>  (b) was in any case not a correct piece of advice from the committee,
>      but rather an unjustifiable piece of obstructionism and in my
>      view an abuse of authority.  
>
>      The committee insisted without any basis on the use of a specific
>      (and verbose) wording which is not mandated by any official
>      documentation.  When I challenged this asking for an explanation
>      of why it should be done that way, I was told that the reason was
>      `you want your newsgroup created'.  Ie, an implied threat.  I saw
>      the writing on the wall and caved.


The sligtly longer explaination might have been that "this is the
form of words that the community has settled on; variation from
this forumla may well extend the discussion as people argue the toss
about what your wording means in practice (whereas the standard wording
will get through without much argument)".

Certainly I recall arguments on this point in the past before 
"the unn* crowd" settled on a form of words they liked.

Cheers,

-- 
Please help Imogen May keep talking - www.imogenmay.com

On Sep 23, 9:33 pm, "Wm..." 
wrote:
> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:22:20
> 
> uk.net.news.config Nige Danton 
>
> >On Sep 23, 7:57 pm, "Wm..." 
> >wrote:
>
> >> d'ya mean those for or against?  the N voters will make a sorry bunch if
> >> shown a bicycle with the noted exception of TomC.
>
> >That's a remarkably authoritative statement.
>
> Yes, I have a lot of votes to support me.

Do you? Lot's of votes to support _you_?

> > Would you care to advise
> >the group about my cycling habits, in particular?
>
> No.  You are, however, free to do so yourself.

A simple acknowledgement of that your comment was uncalled for would
have sufficed.

--
Nige Danton

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:51:17 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:

>The basement was my favourite place when I were a lad* -- where else 
>could you find so many things to press, turn, twiddle with and it had 
>the coal mine.
>
>
>*"Here's enough for a Red Rover, here's your sandwiches, see you later"

35p for a Red Bus Rover, a pocket full of 2ps to phone home every
hour, and mum's spare watch so we knew when to phone home.

Many a day I spent touring London from the age of eight with a friend
or brother.

I cannot recall being given sandwiches, but I suppose we must have.  I
expect we ate them on the first bus we got onto.

--

A four year old has just joined the school where I work.  He can plan
a journey between any two points in London using the bus, train, tram,
tube or DLR network.

A colleague asked him the other day how to get to Uxbridge by bus.  He
rolled off the details, including bus numbers, and then suggested an
alternative route by overground and underground.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8233295.stm

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:52:28 +0100, Adam Funk 
wrote:

[uk.rec.cycling added to the news group line; when setting follow-ups
it is customary and good manners to note this.]

>On 2009-09-23, David Damerell wrote:
>
>> Quoting  Just zis Guy, you know? :
>
>>>There never was any deadline to meet.
>>
>> It seems that over a hundred people wanted their new newsgroup; it was
>> delayed for several weeks, in spite of this being the only group creation
>> activity for four years. Let us hope in the next four years UKV can
>> improve their procedures.
>
>I have to admit, I was pleasantly surprised that over a hundred people
>wanted it.  The delay of several weeks wasn't that significant
>compared to the delays that the usual suspects were trying to create
>with petty objections and canvassing.

I expect a huge amount of email canvassing went on.

Those in favour of the new group were generally very stongly in
favour; those against the new group generally had mixed feelings.  A
great many of the 'yes' voters are either infrequent posters to urc or
past posters to urc.  However, given the scale of the 'yes' vote I
doubt this canvassing made any difference to the outcome.

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:20:13  
uk.rec.cycling Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>

>Wm... wrote:
>> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:51:17  
>>uk.rec.cycling Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>
>>
>>> *"Here's enough for a Red Rover, here's your sandwiches, see you 
>>>later"
>>  Are parents still allowed to do that?  I think they should be able 
>>to.
>>
>
>Mine didn't have much of an option - it would have been that or me 
>coming home covered in mud - again.
>I didn't take to cycling in to the centre of London until I was quite 
>old -- about 13 or 14.
>Not really anything to do with parental control, more of a kid that was 
>never at home as there was to much playing around to be done.
>Some things never change - we only had the occasional dumped car to 
>play with, the only things that were twoc'ed were mopeds. Mind you, I'm 
>glad we didn't have disposable lighters then - there wouldn't be much 
>left for the modern kids to set light to.


I don't have a problem realising anything you have said, K, although it 
was all a while ago for me.

I think my (and possibly your) problem is with other people not 
realising that people can only be young once.

Of course I did some bad things when I was young. I expect other people 
did too.

Now I am a cyclist not jms.  I have grown up and I expect most other 
people have too.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:09:00  
uk.rec.cycling Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>

>Wm... wrote:
>> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:45:02  
>>uk.net.news.config Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>
>>
>>> So, when's the celebratory CM/peloton/primary position pedants ride?
>>  d'ya mean those for or against?  the N voters will make a sorry 
>>bunch if  shown a bicycle with the noted exception of TomC.
>>
>
>For - as there appears to be more chance of a bike ride.
>Plus Paddington is only about 25 mins from me (or 45 if I drive).

I think Guy is our Paddington person, I'm t'other side of the river but 
can get there.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 23 Sep 2009 Ian Jackson  wrote
in news:DLk*SJORs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk: 

> In article ,
> .m    wrote:
>>In terms of good governance you have to expect delays.  You caused
>>a number of these initially by not listening to the advice given
>>to you. 
> 
> Please explain exactly what delays I caused by not listening to
> correct advice.  Feel free to quote any emails between me and the
> committee, if you grant me the same courtesy.
> 
>>It's a process, not a race, and the process, overall, is not
>>broken. 
> 
> 4 months to create a badly-needed group is broken.

Usenet is not "badly needed", I'm not sure that there's ever anything 
that is really time critical involved.

Delays are mainly down to three things:
1) unn* / urc wanting to discuss things and thrash things out in 
detail, that is definitely right and could quite easily take twice as 
long if needed.

2) Control doesn't spend all day every day answering email, no do 
committee members. Everyone's a volunteer, noone sees it as critical.

3) Pedt going missing. Frankly I think more people are worried about 
why he is missing and whether he is OK than wanting to find fault 
there. Could UKV have stepped in earlier, possibly if they had manpower 
available. However before losing all the work that Pedt had put in 
checking and communicating with people it seems worth giving him plenty 
of time to reappear.

-- 
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/

Mike Bristow  writes:

> The sligtly longer explaination might have been that "this is the
> form of words that the community has settled on; variation from this
> forumla may well extend the discussion as people argue the toss
> about what your wording means in practice (whereas the standard
> wording will get through without much argument)".
>
> Certainly I recall arguments on this point in the past before 
> "the unn* crowd" settled on a form of words they liked.

The agreed rules just say you have to forbid them:

    Binaries are allowed in uk.* only in hierarchies explicitly
    created for binary posts, and having a hierarchy charter stating
    this. In all other hierarchies the group charter shall state that
    binaries are not permitted. In any uk.* hierarchy or group whose
    charter does not mention binaries, the assumption shall be that
    binaries are forbidden.

If "the unn* crowd" want some more verbose form of words, perhaps they
should get the rules updated accordingly rather than engaging in
bikeshedding about already compliant charters?

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:33:54 <QQs*4-ORs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> 
uk.net.news.config Ian Jackson 

>In article ,
>.m    wrote:
>>Well I'm not interested in getting into another of your 'who said
>>what' discussions, or reposting committee emails, but there's enough
>>public evidence, such as you ignoring the advice given to you by the
>>likes of Graham and Geoff regarding Binaries (or similar - I've no
>>time to go back and re-read) to demonstrate that you were equally as
>>complicit in any delays.
>
>Bullshit.
>I am not responsible for more than 10 days of the 129 this has taken.

So ... are you saying the komite is responsible for 129 less 10 days of 
delay?  My sums say that means the komite is responsible for 116 days of 
delay.  No-one else, just the komite, 116 days.

>I did have a disagreement with the committee about the exact wording
>of the prohibition against binaries.  That disagreement:
>
> (a) did not contribute to any delay because I conceded almost
>     immediately (the very same day);
>
> (b) was in any case not a correct piece of advice from the committee,
>     but rather an unjustifiable piece of obstructionism and in my
>     view an abuse of authority.

This is going to be fun.  You know better than the komite?

>     The committee insisted without any basis on the use of a specific
>     (and verbose) wording which is not mandated by any official
>     documentation.  When I challenged this asking for an explanation
>     of why it should be done that way, I was told that the reason was
>     `you want your newsgroup created'.  Ie, an implied threat.  I saw
>     the writing on the wall and caved.

Describe the length of the gap, please.

>The reason you don't want to get into "who said what" discussions is
>that I am right and your allegation (that my refusal to take advice
>caused the delays) is utterly wrong.

Oh dear.  You have your group, komite people cannot say "who said what" 
in public.  It is against the rules of decency.  That you challenge them 
is, quite frankly, nasty and unpleasant.

>I had two substantive disagreements with the committee, neither of
>which contributed to the delay (the other was about the wording of the
>2nd RFD SoD's comments about the committee's comments about
>cross

>posting); in the case above because I caved immediately, and in
>the latter case because the disagreement took entirely within the
>mandatory 2nd RFD 10-day waiting period when nothing else was going
>on.  Again I caved.

You seem to be thinking that because you caved the komite should have 
given way on other issues too.  I don't see why.

>A delay was introduced by Control, right at the beginning, who
>unjustifiably rejected my first initial RFD on the grounds that
> (a) it should be ready to be voted on and therefore should
>     contain the list of moderators; and
> (b) I requested crossposting of the discussion to urc.
>
>Both of these objections are specifically contradicted by the
>Guidelines, but obviously I didn't want to make a fuss at the time,
>because I didn't want to antagonise the committee, so after a very
>brief discussion in which the Committee failed to issue an appropriate
>direction to Control, I went away and posted an informal pre-RFD in
>uk.rec.cycling to select the moderators.
>
>In the meantime the establishment came to accept that I was entitled
>to ask for crossposting of my RFD - but this is a bit of a sore point.
>I see that this very discussion itself had an incorrect Followup-To,
>as did 2nd RFD (causing some confusion).

Blimey, the whole world is wrong

>  I assume this is because the
>technical machinery used by Control does not conform to the rules laid
>out in the Guidelines.

I'm amused.

>>Not at all.  Groups that are badly needed are created with a Fast
>>Track very quickly.
>
>So you think I should have asked for a Fast Track ?

Yes, it would have been a lot more interesting to read that your 
moaning.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:02:33 
 
uk.net.news.config Nige Danton 

>On Sep 23, 9:33 pm, "Wm..." 
>wrote:
>> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:22:20
>> 
>> uk.net.news.config Nige Danton 
>>
>> >On Sep 23, 7:57 pm, "Wm..." 
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> d'ya mean those for or against?  the N voters will make a sorry bunch if
>> >> shown a bicycle with the noted exception of TomC.
>>
>> >That's a remarkably authoritative statement.
>>
>> Yes, I have a lot of votes to support me.
>
>Do you? Lot's of votes to support _you_?

Yes.  Look at the Subject:

>> > Would you care to advise
>> >the group about my cycling habits, in particular?
>>
>> No.  You are, however, free to do so yourself.
>
>A simple acknowledgement of that your comment was uncalled for would
>have sufficed.

Unlikely to happen, best not to ask.  Did you vote?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:59:16  
uk.net.news.config Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>

>On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:52:28 +0100, Adam Funk 
>wrote:
>
>[uk.rec.cycling added to the news group line; when setting follow-ups
>it is customary and good manners to note this.]
>
>>On 2009-09-23, David Damerell wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting  Just zis Guy, you know? :
>>
>>>>There never was any deadline to meet.
>>>
>>> It seems that over a hundred people wanted their new newsgroup; it was
>>> delayed for several weeks, in spite of this being the only group creation
>>> activity for four years. Let us hope in the next four years UKV can
>>> improve their procedures.
>>
>>I have to admit, I was pleasantly surprised that over a hundred people
>>wanted it.  The delay of several weeks wasn't that significant
>>compared to the delays that the usual suspects were trying to create
>>with petty objections and canvassing.
>
>I expect a huge amount of email canvassing went on.

I think you should withdraw that statement, TomC, unless you can show 
that it happened.  I wasn't canvassed and I didn't do any canvassing.

>Those in favour of the new group were generally very stongly in
>favour; those against the new group generally had mixed feelings.  A
>great many of the 'yes' voters are either infrequent posters to urc or
>past posters to urc.  However, given the scale of the 'yes' vote I
>doubt this canvassing made any difference to the outcome.

I doubt the canvassing happened to any extent.  It is a nice idea to 
think people are easily swayed but in my experience people know what 
they want and vote accordingly.

In case I am unclear: I think TomC is fibbing about the canvassing.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:41:13 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>>I expect a huge amount of email canvassing went on.
>
>I think you should withdraw that statement, TomC, unless you can show 
>that it happened.  I wasn't canvassed and I didn't do any canvassing.

Chill pill!  Does it matter?  TBH if I were trying to get something
done I'd not think twice about canvassing support.  This is different,
to my aged mind, to trying to covertly influence one way or another,
the outcome.

>I doubt the canvassing happened to any extent.  It is a nice idea to 
>think people are easily swayed but in my experience people know what 
>they want and vote accordingly.

Exactly.  Again, I may try to canvas support for re-instating plain
chocolate hobnobs on the list of acceptable komite expenses, but if
people don't agree, they're not going to actively support my request.

>In case I am unclear: I think TomC is fibbing about the canvassing.

I really don't think it matters IRL.  Pick your fights Wm...   :-)

I know that if I was given an
>>open ticket to the BM at your lad's age I'd be gone for days.
>
>
> You really are a fuckwit Tarr  - do you have  any kids of your own? -
> I will bet no - something to do with Darwin.
>
> What makes you think that anyone is going to be interested in your
> advice on bringing up their kids.  If anything they may be slightly
> concerned - as Aard said: "You're beginning to come across a little
> 'strange', wm."


Seems to me we need somewhere to talk without all these stupid (possibly 
motorists) clowns and idiots.
Sooner gone the better.
Someone please name the day?

John

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:46:45  
uk.rec.cycling Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>

>A four year old has just joined the school where I work.  He can plan
>a journey between any two points in London using the bus, train, tram,
>tube or DLR network.
>
>A colleague asked him the other day how to get to Uxbridge by bus.  He
>rolled off the details, including bus numbers, and then suggested an
>alternative route by overground and underground.
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8233295.stm

No NCR's?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 23 Sep, 14:37, Eleanor Blair  wrote:
> Jon Ribbens  wrote:
>
> >Indeed. Mark has now said that Pedt asked him to send the ballot paper
> >directly to him, which resolves the mystery. All ballot papers should
> >of course always be sent to the @vote.ukvoting address, and Pedt
> >shouldn't really have asked him to send it directly.
>
> I voted from Gmail, which doesn't record the IP address of the machine
> from which I was accessing their web interface, and was asked to
> re-vote:

H'mmm... I also voted from Gmail, and was not asked to revote.

I wonder why the difference?

Not that it matters, of course, provided that people with valid votes
were counted.

On 2009-09-23, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:52:28 +0100, Adam Funk 
> wrote:

>>I have to admit, I was pleasantly surprised that over a hundred people
>>wanted it.  The delay of several weeks wasn't that significant
>>compared to the delays that the usual suspects were trying to create
>>with petty objections and canvassing.
>
> I expect a huge amount of email canvassing went on.

I didn't get any, but it was probably obvious from the start that I
was in favour.

> Those in favour of the new group were generally very stongly in
> favour; those against the new group generally had mixed feelings.  A
> great many of the 'yes' voters are either infrequent posters to urc or
> past posters to urc.  However, given the scale of the 'yes' vote I
> doubt this canvassing made any difference to the outcome.

I suspect there are lot of infrequent posters to urc who read it quite
a lot (I certainly read a lot more threads than I post to, but the
current state of the group discourages me from bothering to contribute
much of the time) or would like to.  They will probably participate in
urcm.

On 23 Sep 2009 "Wm..."  wrote in
news:d8FR23UWxjuKFwy3@[127.0.0.1]: 

> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:29:33
>  uk.net.news.config
> Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> 
> 
>>Also note that my original vote was made before the deadline.
> 
> The thing that puzzles me is why you are making such a big deal
> about this.

I think he's right to. If there's something that means that a vote that 
has been acked isn't counted then we need to be aware of that so that 
we know how it happened and where the process may need some tweeking. 
This time it doesn't matter (and won't delay anything - even if there 
was a complaint officially I suspect committee would say that we 
implement the result and then look at what to do), next time it may be 
a decisive vote going missing.

Sounds like the problem is quite minor though. Worst case would be his 
vote would have made a difference, he emails us the ack and the result 
gets changed.

-- 
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:27:34 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>I still reckon a trials bike will get to places you can't go, mind you, 
>horses are good too :)

Almost anything can get to the places I can and can't go these days.
The most off-roading I've done in the last couple of years involves
making Tea for Mountain Rescue training and attending Festival of
Transport type shows.

As an On Topic aside, the South African student we employed over the
summer hols (yes, checked all documents and made photocopies) who
cycled in every day, reckoned that 'British' cyclists were a miserable
and arrogant lot.  She also couldn't understand cycle lanes or why
'British' car drivers seemed so frightened and didn't appear to have
many bumps.

Everything is relative.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:48:01 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
 wrote:

>H'mmm... I also voted from Gmail, and was not asked to revote.
>I wonder why the difference?

Probably because it's the address you already use for usenet?
Only a guess, mind - it could also be because you use linux ;-)

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:05:13 +0100, Graham Drabble
 wrote:

>Sounds like the problem is quite minor though. Worst case would be his 
>vote would have made a difference, he emails us the ack and the result 
>gets changed.

Had the vote been 'close', Jon would have dissected each and every
vote, though, so it's unlikely that the same situation would ever
really arise again.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:47:48 +0100, Adam Funk 
wrote:

>I suspect there are lot of infrequent posters to urc who read it quite
>a lot (I certainly read a lot more threads than I post to, but the
>current state of the group discourages me from bothering to contribute
>much of the time) or would like to.  They will probably participate in
>urcm.

Or continue to lurk in the moderated group, and/but enjoy the content
more due to the lack of need to filter/delete/wade through the
'noise'.  This is certainly what I do with uk.legal.moderated and TBH,
haven't really missed the unmoderated group since dropping it.

On 2009-09-23,  m  wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:05:13 +0100, Graham Drabble
> wrote:
>
>>Sounds like the problem is quite minor though. Worst case would be his 
>>vote would have made a difference, he emails us the ack and the result 
>>gets changed.
>
> Had the vote been 'close', Jon would have dissected each and every
> vote, though, so it's unlikely that the same situation would ever
> really arise again.

Yes, there is no problem at all - it is unfortunate that Mark's vote
was not validated, but this was a known and expected side-effect of
the decision I made to save time. It was not an accident.

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:54:55  
uk.net.news.config . m <nospam@notnominet.name.invalid>

>As an On Topic aside, the South African student we employed over the
>summer hols (yes, checked all documents and made photocopies) who
>cycled in every day, reckoned that 'British' cyclists were a miserable
>and arrogant lot.

She didn't do Skyride in Lunnen on Sunday then.

> She also couldn't understand cycle lanes or why
>'British' car drivers seemed so frightened and didn't appear to have
>many bumps.

Hmmmn, is the young lady in question firm (rather than full) figured?

>Everything is relative.

I think if she was one of my broad family I'd have been told.

What is her first language?  My Xhosa is rusty.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:34:48  
uk.net.news.config . m <nospam@notnominet.name.invalid>

>On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:41:13 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>>I expect a huge amount of email canvassing went on.
>>
>>I think you should withdraw that statement, TomC, unless you can show
>>that it happened.  I wasn't canvassed and I didn't do any canvassing.
>
>Chill pill!  Does it matter?

No.

> TBH if I were trying to get something
>done I'd not think twice about canvassing support.  This is different,
>to my aged mind, to trying to covertly influence one way or another,
>the outcome.

Yes.

>>I doubt the canvassing happened to any extent.  It is a nice idea to
>>think people are easily swayed but in my experience people know what
>>they want and vote accordingly.
>
>Exactly.  Again, I may try to canvas support for re-instating plain
>chocolate hobnobs on the list of acceptable komite expenses, but if
>people don't agree, they're not going to actively support my request.

I might start canvassing for rats to be held upside down and stroked the 
wrong way.  See the beebs Lost Land of the Volcanoes.

>>In case I am unclear: I think TomC is fibbing about the canvassing.
>
>I really don't think it matters IRL.  Pick your fights Wm...   :-)

I do take your point, M.  Tom isn't a person I should be fighting with, 
the people I do want to fight with just don't stick around long enough 
to be beaten up properly.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:41:13 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>In case I am unclear: I think TomC is fibbing about the canvassing.

A significant number of previous posters to urc voted.  I expect
someone emailed them to let them know the vote was taking place.  I
have no way of knowing the content of any email, but I doubt any email
would be encouraging them to vote against the new group.  Indeed, I
even recall that someone posted to the RFD saying that he had been
informed that the vote was taking place, and that person tried to
place his vote there and then in favour of the new group and said that
he would unsubscribe until the new group is formed.

I don't have a problem with this, for years political party activists
have been offering the infirm a lift to the local polling station, and
I don't view emails encouraging a particular vote to be much different
from that, but it does go some way to explain what has been called the
largest turnout for a new Usenet group for many years. 

I am frequently mistaken, but I rarely tell lies.  When I said that I
expect there had been a huge amount of email canvassing, that was
exactly what I meant.  I expect there was.  I expect that a great many
former subscribers to urc were sent emails, and that a proportion of
them voted in favour of the new group.

Our disagreement might be with my definition of canvassing.

"Ian Jackson"  wrote ..

> My first email to
> Control was on the 20th of May, _over four months ago_.

AFAICT ...

20 May - Your first email
?? ??? - 1st RFD published
22 Jun - 2nd RFD published
20 July - 1st CFV
07 Aug - Voting Closed
21 Sep - Result announced

Apart from the 6 weeks taken in determing the result it seems pretty 
expedient to me; two months between your first email and CFV. Especially as 
the proposal did raise legitimate debate on censorship versus moderation, 
intent of charter, your rationale on cross-posting, moderation policy and 
capability of moderators. And it didn't help when proposed moderators were 
appearing to state they'd apply different policies to other moderators and 
would put their own policies ahead of any official moderation policy.

So that's two months to raise and dicuss two 'contentious' RFD's which 
doesn't seem unreasonable to me. That 20% of final votes were against 
creation suggests that there was legitimacy and purpose to the debate and 
discussions as well as off-topic asides. I'd say debate lasted as long as 
necessary in the circumstances and the time spent not unreasonable.

The only valid gripe I can see is that it took so long to get the results 
counted, and too long to realise Pedt had gone AWOL and adopt Plan B. That 
largely derives, I suspect, from a reluctance to assume the worst, and in 
that respect I hope we hear good news soon in respect of Pedt.

Anyway, the group's creation has been approved and, although I voted 
against, I hope it is a success. And I think thanks should go to everyone 
who took part in the debate; I'd rather see involvement, interest and 
discussion, even dispute, than disinterest when it comes to usenet.

On 23/09/2009 22:11, Tom Crispin wrote:
> I am frequently mistaken, but I rarely tell lies.  When I said that I
> expect there had been a huge amount of email canvassing, that was
> exactly what I meant.  I expect there was.  I expect that a great many
> former subscribers to urc were sent emails, and that a proportion of
> them voted in favour of the new group.

I contacted 3 former urc regulars (Wafflycat, Trevor Panther and 
LSMike), all of whom I was already in regular contact with and who I 
knew were keen on the idea of a moderated group even before Ian's 
proposal.  They had all left urc for precisely the reasons that we 
wanted a moderated group.

I don't regard that as canvassing.  I regard that as keeping interested 
parties in the loop.

> Our disagreement might be with my definition of canvassing.


-- 
Danny Colyer  <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down.  This should be every boy's 
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

On 23 Sep 2009 11:46:21 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In article ,
>.m    wrote:
>>On 22 Sep 2009 20:33:32 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
>> wrote:
>>>Mmm. That a complete hash has been made of the first group vote for _four
>>>years_ [1] is not very encouraging.
>>
>>I'm completely at a loss as to how you can draw such a conclusion.  
>
>I think David is referring to the long delays at many stages of the
>process and particularly in counting the votes.  My first email to
>Control was on the 20th of May, _over four months ago_.
>
>I have counted up where the time went.  Of these four months so far[1]:
> * 9 days were spent by me
> * 5 days were spent by the proposed moderation panel
> * 13 days were spent on public discussion in unnc and urc
> * 13 days were spent by Control
> * 33 days were spent by the first VT before he went missing
> * 11 days were due directly to the first VT going missing
> * 13 days were then spent by UKVoting and/or the replacement VT
> * 32 days were a consequence of rules in the Guidelines
>
>Or to look at it another way:
> * 27 days for people and discussion associated with the proposed group
> * 24 days due to the exceptional event of the VT going missing
> * 78 days for the USENET UK establishment
>
>Or to look at it another way, given that the useful discussion had
>finished by the 25th of June:
> * 35 days to come up with a good proposal
> * 95 days to vote on it
>
>Personally I think it's absurd that it can take over four months to
>create a moderated newsgroup which (as evidenced by the vote) is so
>badly needed.
>
>[1] This count includes events up to the end of the 5-day post-results
> waiting period, and assumes that the group will be created on the 
> 26th of September.  There was quite a bit of manual adding-up so I
> may be a day or two off.


Perhaps you should stand as a Vote-taker yourself in the hope that you
can influence and improve things.
--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:40:39 +0100, .m  
wrote:

>On 23 Sep 2009 11:46:21 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>
>>I think David is referring to the long delays at many stages of the
>>process and particularly in counting the votes.
>
>In terms of good governance you have to expect delays.  You caused a
>number of these initially by not listening to the advice given to you.
>It's a process, not a race, and the process, overall, is not broken.


Ah yes - let the accusations and recriminations commence - what a
surprise.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:44:19 +0100, Danny Colyer
 wrote:

>On 23/09/2009 22:11, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> I am frequently mistaken, but I rarely tell lies.  When I said that I
>> expect there had been a huge amount of email canvassing, that was
>> exactly what I meant.  I expect there was.  I expect that a great many
>> former subscribers to urc were sent emails, and that a proportion of
>> them voted in favour of the new group.
>
>I contacted 3 former urc regulars (Wafflycat, Trevor Panther and 
>LSMike), all of whom I was already in regular contact with and who I 
>knew were keen on the idea of a moderated group even before Ian's 
>proposal.  They had all left urc for precisely the reasons that we 
>wanted a moderated group.
>
>I don't regard that as canvassing.  I regard that as keeping interested 
>parties in the loop.

As I have said, I don't have a problem with that.  I may well have
done the same.  I was deeply saddened that Trevor, in particular, felt
that he could no longer continue reading urc.

>> Our disagreement might be with my definition of canvassing.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:54:16 +0100, "Wm..the lying fuckwit ."
 wrote:

>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:33:37 <DLk*SJORs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> 
>uk.net.news.config Ian Jackson 
>
>>In article ,
>>.m    wrote:
>>>In terms of good governance you have to expect delays.  You caused a
>>>number of these initially by not listening to the advice given to you.
>>
>>Please explain exactly what delays I caused by not listening to
>>correct advice.  Feel free to quote any emails between me and the
>>committee, if you grant me the same courtesy.
>
>Martyn (or any other komite) is very unlikely to quote any e-mail he 
>received as a komite functionary.  Them is the roolz.  Da e-mail is 
>privotski.

Rubbish - Jackson has specifically said he can relax that rule
regarding *his* correspondence.



--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:19:21 +0100, .m  
wrote:

>On 23 Sep 2009 14:33:37 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>
>>>In terms of good governance you have to expect delays.  You caused a
>>>number of these initially by not listening to the advice given to you.
>>
>>Please explain exactly what delays I caused by not listening to
>>correct advice.  Feel free to quote any emails between me and the
>>committee, if you grant me the same courtesy.
>
>Well I'm not interested in getting into another of your 'who said
>what' discussions, or reposting committee emails, but there's enough
>public evidence, such as you ignoring the advice given to you by the
>likes of Graham and Geoff regarding Binaries (or similar - I've no
>time to go back and re-read) to demonstrate that you were equally as
>complicit in any delays.  
>
>I'm not using this as a stick to beat you with - simply pointing out
>that it's all a part of an (unbroken) process.
>
>
>>>It's a process, not a race, and the process, overall, is not broken.
>>
>>4 months to create a badly-needed group is broken.
>
>Not at all.  Groups that are badly needed are created with a Fast
>Track very quickly.
>



 ie the  group was not badly needed - I assume that that is your view
in your official capacity?

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:11:11  
uk.net.news.config Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>

>On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:41:13 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>In case I am unclear: I think TomC is fibbing about the canvassing.
>
>A significant number of previous posters to urc voted.  I expect
>someone emailed them to let them know the vote was taking place.

Who and why?  Whoever it was had their effort backfire if their 
intention was to get people to vote N

>  I
>have no way of knowing the content of any email, but I doubt any email
>would be encouraging them to vote against the new group.  Indeed, I
>even recall that someone posted to the RFD saying that he had been
>informed that the vote was taking place, and that person tried to
>place his vote there and then in favour of the new group and said that
>he would unsubscribe until the new group is formed.

Seems reasonable at the time.

>I don't have a problem with this, for years political party activists
>have been offering the infirm a lift to the local polling station, and
>I don't view emails encouraging a particular vote to be much different
>from that, but it does go some way to explain what has been called the
>largest turnout for a new Usenet group for many years.

Have you looked at who voted?  There are a number of unnc people that 
voted who probably haven't had a whiff of a bike seat in years.  What 
they felt, however, having read the arguments and seen the discussion 
was that the group should be created.

My problem is this: are you suggesting any of these people were unduly 
influenced:

AdamF
Myself (Wm)
SimonB
GuyC
kat
either Mr or Mrs Merriman
ChrisF
MarkG
DannyC
DanP
RA
congokid
IanJ
wafflycat
et al

if so I think you will find yourself in a deep and muddy place.

I'd be very interested in your explanation of how RA was influenced, to 
take an example, because to the best of my knowledge he doesn't take 
influence any more than I do.

>I am frequently mistaken, but I rarely tell lies.  When I said that I
>expect there had been a huge amount of email canvassing, that was
>exactly what I meant.  I expect there was.

Your expectation is either real or imaginary.  I think you are making 
things up.

>  I expect that a great many
>former subscribers to urc were sent emails, and that a proportion of
>them voted in favour of the new group.

Check who voted.

>Our disagreement might be with my definition of canvassing.

Probably.  I know that I didn't canvass.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:12:28 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Who and why?  Whoever it was had their effort backfire if their 
>intention was to get people to vote N

Clearly you have misunderstood me.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:36:19 +0100, "Wm...the lying fuckwit"
 wrote:

>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:17:10  
>uk.net.news.config . m <nospam@notnominet.name.invalid>
>
>>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:18:54 -0500, Jon Ribbens
>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>but given the circumstances I was trying to get a result out
>>>quickly, and with the margin between YES and NO being so large it
>>>seemed to me that it would have been a waste of everyone's time to
>>>faff around further.
>>
>>IMO the correct and logical strategy, and thanks again.
>
>I thought I had already said this, I agree.


If you have already said it - why do you waste a post to say it again?

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:39:26 +0100, "Wm...the lying fuckwit"
 wrote:

>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:51:17  
>uk.rec.cycling Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>
>
>>*"Here's enough for a Red Rover, here's your sandwiches, see you later"
>
>Are parents still allowed to do that?  I think they should be able to.


I don't think they should.

There are some very unsavoury people who have a very unhealthy
interest in boys out there.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:07:28 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:

>Doug wrote:
>> On 21 Sep, 19:43, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:25:38 +0100, Jon Ribbens
>>>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> [uk.rec.cycling put back into the NG line.  It is customary to warn
>>> posters if follow-ups have been set]
>>>
>>>> RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>>>> Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>>> Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
>>> I hope the new group succeeds.
>>>
>> Why would somebody who is not the slightest bit interested in a
>> censored newsgroup bother to vote? Wouldn't this fact skew the vote in
>> its favour anyway?
>> 
>
>
>We have been informed that all the 'fuckwits' will clear off and leave 
>urc to 'sensible' people. To that end it is important for urcm to be 
>created or then 'fuckwits' won't fuck off.
>That it gives the 'fuckwits' somewhere cosy to sit and pop in to urc to 
>feed the flames now and then is a bonus.


Spot on - looking forward to it.

-- 
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:  Pedal Cyclists : 527    Pedestrians 371
All casualties:  Pedal Cyclists : 3494    Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:15:47 +0100, "Wm...the lying fuckwit"
 wrote:

>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:41:23 <slrnhbkct0.kv4.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net> 
>uk.net.news.config Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>
>
>>There is no vote that is missing from the
>>results.
>
>Quite.


You are a fool.

How do *you* know that?


--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:44:19 
 uk.net.news.config 
Danny Colyer 

>On 23/09/2009 22:11, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> I am frequently mistaken, but I rarely tell lies.  When I said that I
>> expect there had been a huge amount of email canvassing, that was
>> exactly what I meant.  I expect there was.  I expect that a great many
>> former subscribers to urc were sent emails, and that a proportion of
>> them voted in favour of the new group.
>
>I contacted 3 former urc regulars (Wafflycat, Trevor Panther and 
>LSMike), all of whom I was already in regular contact with and who I 
>knew were keen on the idea of a moderated group even before Ian's 
>proposal.  They had all left urc for precisely the reasons that we 
>wanted a moderated group.
>
>I don't regard that as canvassing.  I regard that as keeping interested 
>parties in the loop.
>
>> Our disagreement might be with my definition of canvassing.


Quite.  Danny, just how many people are there in the UK that ride those 
big unicycles?  I met a man riding one last Sunday in London.  He 
thought the people that did the LEGOT were youngsters. (He wasn't the 
man pretending to read the newspaper, just a person on a unicycle 
getting his 15k in).

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

In article ,
	Richard Kettlewell  wrote:
> Mike Bristow  writes:
>
>> The sligtly longer explaination might have been that "this is the
>> form of words that the community has settled on; variation from this
>> forumla may well extend the discussion as people argue the toss
>> about what your wording means in practice (whereas the standard
>> wording will get through without much argument)".
>>
>> Certainly I recall arguments on this point in the past before 
>> "the unn* crowd" settled on a form of words they liked.

[snip]

> If "the unn* crowd" want some more verbose form of words, perhaps they
> should get the rules updated accordingly 

I don't think anyone volunteered.

> rather than engaging in
> bikeshedding about already compliant charters?

OTOH, if bikeshedding has occured in the past, the wise proponent
would do well to pick the paint that has previously been settled
on (unless the red paint simply won't do!).   A caring commitee
would say "you do know you're setting off a bear trap here? You can 
avoid it like <this>" to the proponent - who may not know the history
of this particular carpentry dispute.  

But I've not seen any of the mail between the committee and Ian,
so I really don't know what actually happened.

-- 
Please help Imogen May keep talking - www.imogenmay.com

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:19:21 +0100, .m   wrote
in :

>Not at all.  Groups that are badly needed are created with a Fast
>Track very quickly.

I think it would be more accurate to say that there are processes by
which urgently needed groups can be created more quickly although I am
not sure that we can ever really say that a newsgroup is "needed" rather
than just wanted.

In this case I think the vote shows that many people wanted the group
but that is not a measure of urgency.

Since newsgroups are difficult to delete once they have been created I
think it is appropriate for the creation process to involve some effort
and take some time. Given the unusual circumstances (and I too hope that
Pedt is OK) I do not thing that the overall time to get to the result of
the vote is excessive.

-- 
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:57:08  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:15:47 +0100, "Wm...the lying fuckwit"
> wrote:
>
>>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:41:23 <slrnhbkct0.kv4.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net>
>>uk.net.news.config Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>
>>
>>>There is no vote that is missing from the
>>>results.
>>
>>Quite.
>
>
>You are a fool.
>
>How do *you* know that?

I read the RESULT

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:28:54  
uk.net.news.config Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>

>On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:12:28 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>Who and why?  Whoever it was had their effort backfire if their
>>intention was to get people to vote N
>
>Clearly you have misunderstood me.

I am happy to be wrong where you are concerned, Tom.  Do you not think 
you should explain what you meant?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:33:20  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>If you have already said it - why do you waste a post to say it again?

I can say anything I like whenever I like.

I doubt I am the only person that gets the irony.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:04:53 GMT
"The Happy Hippy"  wrote:

> That 20% of final votes were against 
> creation suggests that

you're not very good at arithmetic?

In  Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> writes:

>This was before he disappeared and I would have expected in any case
>my vote not to have been "lost".  Other votes have been counted, why
>not mine?  My corrected vote was sent to the correct email address and
>I got a formal acknowledgement.

Then I suggest you send a copy of that formal acknowledgement to Jon.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

On 23/09/2009 23:39, Wm... wrote:
> Quite.  Danny, just how many people are there in the UK that ride those 
> big unicycles?  I met a man riding one last Sunday in London. 

Dunno.  I could probably name 20 or so, but there will be plenty of 
others who I don't know.

They're good for covering distance, but not all that easy to control.  I 
keep thinking about selling my 36" wheel and replacing it with a 29", 
but when I did some investigation recently after being approached by a 
potential buyer I found that my early model's 2nd-hand market value is 
considerably less than I'd be willing to part with it for.

> He 
> thought the people that did the LEGOT were youngsters.

For those who have no idea what Wm's on about:
http://www.redwelly.co.uk/end2end/wordpress/

Sam /is/ a youngster.  It seems he was only 22 when he set the 24 hour 
record 2 years ago:
http://arbroath.blogspot.com/2007/10/unicycling-student-claims-record.html

Dunno how old Roger is.  I've known him for about 14 years and he's 
always claimed to be 8, though I'd be inclined to add the best part of 
40 years to that.

-- 
Danny Colyer  <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down.  This should be every boy's 
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

At 18:32:16 on Thu, 24 Sep 2009, David Damerell 
 wrote in 
<OVk*iTURs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

>Quoting  kat :
>>>Quoting  .m   :
>>>>If you don't like your pizza delivered in the way it is, why not fuck
>>>>off somewhere else that delivers the way you like it?
>>And maybe we are just a little fed up at being ranted at by someone who got
>>the result he wanted.
>
>Who's ranting, again? It's the Committee that feel the need to tell people
>to "fuck off".

And it's Ian who has accused the Committee of every possible deliberate 
malfeasance short of the Ukrainian Famine of the 1931/32.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:06:14 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>And it's Ian who has accused the Committee of every possible deliberate 
>malfeasance short of the Ukrainian Famine of the 1931/32.

Are you sure that wasn't one of ours?

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:20:33 +0100, "Wm...the lying fuckwit"
 wrote:

>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:38:47  
>uk.net.news.config . m <nospam@notnominet.name.invalid>
>
>>On 22 Sep 2009 20:33:32 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Mmm. That a complete hash has been made of the first group vote for _four
>>>years_ [1] is not very encouraging.
>>
>>I'm completely at a loss as to how you can draw such a conclusion.
>>
>>The process was perfect and demonstrates that in the case of an
>>undesirable and unexpected event, plans are in place for completion.
>
>Quite.  I see robustness.
>
>Maybe DavidD is gnew to the idea of wot we have been donning for a 
>dec-ard or wots the ten year thing.  Yes, I mean that.


*You*  - have been doing precisely jack-shit.

*You* are not part of the official process - so stop making out that
you are.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On 24 Sep 2009 16:59:21 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>In article ,
>Mike Bristow   wrote:
>>But I've not seen any of the mail between the committee and Ian,
>>so I really don't know what actually happened.
>
>Mark Goodge wrote a private email to me in his capacity as a member of
>the Committee[1], and CCing the Committee, on the 15th of June,

It wasn't a private email. It was an email on the committee list, and
on which you were cc'd.

> saying
>that the ban on binaries and HTML was required to be part of the
>charter itself and that this was mandated by the Guidelines[2] [3].

Which is the case, as can be seen from reading the guidelines
themselves at http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html

>I read this email on the 16th of June and replied asking Control to
>hold off posting the 2nd RFD while I fixed it.  Later that day I had
>looked up the Guidelines and suggested (with my reasoning, see also
>[3]) adding just the following wording to the charter:
>   Binaries are forbidden.
>
>I asked for confirmation from Mark that this would meet with his
>approval.
>
>Mark replied telling me that the `usual wording' was the boilerplate
>as seen in the uk.legal.moderated charter.  He suggested that I copy
>that wording unless really wanted to do it differently.

Which I think was a sensible response. The usual wording has been
acceptable in previous moderated group creations, so changing it is
only likely to generate more arguments about why the common wording
hasn't been used.

>I replied explaining that:
>   Yes, I think I do want to do it differently, unless there's some
>   reason I shouldn't.
>I explained why: I thought the standard text was excessively verbose
>and detailed and that the discussion consensus had clearly been in
>favour of a short charter.  I proposed putting the boilerplate
>material (or something very like it) in the moderation policy.  
>I asked for the opinions of other Committee members.
>
>In reply Kat sent me a mail which I still can't quite make out as
>supporting one view or the other, and Martyn Bailey replied telling me
>that a good reason was that I `[wanted] the group created'.

Martyn's point, which I agree with, is that insisting on your wording
would have been be very likely to significantly increase the number of
people voting against the group.

>All of this discussion took about two hours.  I capitulated, and sent
>a version of the 2nd RFD with the boilerplate to Control.
>
>
>I think there are several things wrong with the Committee's behaviour:
>
> * Mark misinterpreted the Guidelines and persisted to defend the
>   wrong interpretation as some kind of informal standard after I
>   pointed out the mistake.

I didn't make a mistake. I correctly pointed out that the charter must
ban binaries, and expressed a personal opinion that the usual wording
was the best way forward.

> * The Committee were bikeshedding.  Mark should have replied `yes' to
>   my question asking whether `Binaries are forbidden' would suffice,
>   because it wasn't that important.
>
> * The Committee made these comments in private at the stage of
>   proposed publication of the RFD.  Instead they should in general
>   make their comments in public, unless publication of the RFD would
>   somehow be wrong in and of itself.

We were responding in email to questions asked in email. If you'd
asked the same questions in unnc then I'd have said exactly the same
things in unnc.

> * Overall the Commitee abused their privileged position to impose a
>   requirement which has no basis in the Guidelines document which is
>   supposed to govern their behaviour and their powers.

We didn't impose it. We strongly suggested it. You eventually decided
to take our advice. That's how it works. That's how it's *supposed* to
work when you ask for advice.

>[2] I would prefer to quote from his email, which I think would be
>    proper to do, but it's not clear that everyone will agree.  If
>    Mark thinks I have misrepresented him he can post his words here
>    for himself.

These are the two emails that I sent to the committee list, the first
in response to Ian's draft RFD which put the prohibition on binaries
in the moderation policy rather than the charter, and the second in
response to the email in which he suggested using a single "binaries
are prohibited" line in the charter. I have redacted them slightly by
antispamming email addresses and removing references and other
extraneous headers, but otherwise this is exactly as they appeared on
the committee mailing list:

==================================================================

Message-ID: 
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:56:33 +0100
From: Mark Goodge <mark@...>
To: committee@...
CC: ijackson@...
Subject: Re: RFD: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
In-Reply-To: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ian Jackson wrote:
> 
> 
> INITIAL MODERATION POLICY
> 
> The following are on-topic and encouraged:
>  * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
>  * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
>    on cycling within the UK;
>  * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
>  * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.
> 
> The following are prohibited:
>  * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
>  * Binaries and any posts not in English plain text (not HTML or RTF);
>  * Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;
>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>    discussion.

As previously stated, the ban on binaries and HTML *must* be part of
the charter itself - it cannot be left to the moderation policy.

This isn't a matter of opinion; it's mandated by the guidelines for 
group creation which explicitly state that "Binaries are allowed in
uk.* only in hierarchies explicitly created for binary posts, and
having a hierarchy charter stating this. In all other hierarchies the
group charter shall state that binaries are not permitted".

Mark

==================================================================

Message-ID: 
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:20:27 +0100
From: Mark Goodge <mark@...>
To: committee@...
CC: ijackson@...
Subject: Re: RFD: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
In-Reply-To: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ian Jackson wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I'm sorry, I misunderstood your comments in unnc.  I thought you meant
>> to say that the ban on binaries and HTML was automatic and that it
>> therefore didn't need restatement.  So I only added it into the
>> moderation policy for extra clarity.
> 
> Looking at the Guidelines text it mentions only binaries and not
> HTML.  Not that I really want to permit HTML but I would like to keep
> the charter short, and putting the prohibition of HTML in the mod
> policy means it's possible to add to the list of kinds of braindamage
> there (eg, to mention RTF).
> 
> So would it suffice to add
>    Binaries are forbidden.
> to the charter ?
> 
> Consequentially it would seem sensible to change
>    Binaries and any posts not in English plain text (not HTML or RTF);
> to
>    Any posts not in English plain text (ie not HTML or RTF);
> in the mod policy's list of prohibitions, as the clarification by
> explicit mention of binaries is then repetitious.

The usual wording in charters since that ruling was brought in is 
something along the lines of "Posts must be readable as plain text. 
HTML, RTF and similarly formatted messages are prohibited." That
leaves it sufficiently ambiguous for formats other than HTML and RTF
to be included in the prohibition as well.

Unless you really want to do it differently, I'd suggest copying the 
wording from other groups, such as the charter for uk.legal.moderated.
(see http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html). There is some 
wording in there that isn't really necessary (such as the statement 
about putting binaries on a web or ftp site), but the basic ban on 
binaries and HTML/RTF/etc is both clear and wide enough.

Also, although the guidelines themselves don't mandate it, I'd suggest
including the clause permitting cryptographic signatures (eg, PGP). 
Regular users of the group may never need to use them, but if Control 
even needs to post an RFD or CFV to the group then it will be PGP 
signed, and it would be rather daft to ban something that may 
occasionally be essential!

Mark

==================================================================

Note the words "I'd suggest" twice in the second email, plus my
description of the proposed wording as "something along the lines of".
It's hard to see how that can be described as "imposing" my (or our)
views, especially since they were given in response to an email which
explicitly asked for a response. If you'd wanted a yes/no answer you
should have asked for a yes/no answer; any reasonable person reading
your email would assume that you were making a suggestion and inviting
comments on it.

Mark

Speaking as a member of, but not on behalf of, the UK Usenet
Committee.
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:09:40 +0100, .m  
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:06:14 +0100, Molly Mockford
> wrote:
>
>>And it's Ian who has accused the Committee of every possible deliberate 
>>malfeasance short of the Ukrainian Famine of the 1931/32.
>
>Are you sure that wasn't one of ours?

It was a genocide with between 2.6m and 10m victims, making it
possibly worse than the holocaust.

Does this end this thread under Godwin's?

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:06:14 <sR73PsoWU7uKFwXf@molly.mockford> 
uk.net.news.config Molly Mockford 

>At 18:32:16 on Thu, 24 Sep 2009, David Damerell 
> wrote in 
><OVk*iTURs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>
>>Quoting  kat :
>>>>Quoting  .m   :
>>>>>If you don't like your pizza delivered in the way it is, why not fuck
>>>>>off somewhere else that delivers the way you like it?
>>>And maybe we are just a little fed up at being ranted at by someone who got
>>>the result he wanted.
>>
>>Who's ranting, again? It's the Committee that feel the need to tell people
>>to "fuck off".
>
>And it's Ian who has accused the Committee of every possible deliberate 
>malfeasance short of the Ukrainian Famine of the 1931/32.

I must have missed that.  For starters I wasn't born at the time.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 24 Sep 2009 16:25:27 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Quoting  .m   :
>> wrote:
>>>Mmm. That a complete hash has been made of the first group vote for _four
>>>years_ [1] is not very encouraging.
>>I'm completely at a loss as to how you can draw such a conclusion.  
>>The process was perfect
>
>In the sense that if I phoned out for a pizza and got one a week later the
>process would be perfect. Oh, and I was told I was having pepperoni
>whether I wanted it or not.

Newsgroup creation is not in any way a time-sensitive issue. Pizza
delivery is.

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

On 23 Sep 2009 11:46:21 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Personally I think it's absurd that it can take over four months to
>create a moderated newsgroup which (as evidenced by the vote) is so
>badly needed.

It's not "badly needed". It's strongly desired. There's an important
difference. Usenet is a recreational pursuit, not a matter of life and
death.

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

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:55:13 
 
uk.net.news.config Mark Goodge 

>On 24 Sep 2009 16:25:27 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>
>>Quoting  .m   :
>>> wrote:
>>>>Mmm. That a complete hash has been made of the first group vote for _four
>>>>years_ [1] is not very encouraging.
>>>I'm completely at a loss as to how you can draw such a conclusion.
>>>The process was perfect
>>
>>In the sense that if I phoned out for a pizza and got one a week later the
>>process would be perfect. Oh, and I was told I was having pepperoni
>>whether I wanted it or not.
>
>Newsgroup creation is not in any way a time-sensitive issue. Pizza
>delivery is.

Needless to say being impatient may result in an unexpected topping.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 24 Sep 2009 16:07:40 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Quoting  Just zis Guy, you know? :
>> wrote:
>>>Yes, systems with an obvious single point of failure tend to go badly
>>>wrong when it fails. That is a reason to eliminate obvious single points
>>>of failure. For example, there is a deputy Control.
>>And in this case someone else picked up the ball.
>
>Eventually!
>
>>You appear to be
>>criticising them for not having a procedure to handle a situation
>>which has never come up before.
>
>I really don't think it is beyond human ingenuity to spot single points of
>failure in advance occasionally.

Well, actually, the system of passing all the votes through the
UKVoting server and archiving them en route was devised specifically
in response to a similar situation like this in the past. So the
votetaker *isn't* a single point of failure (if anything is, it's the
central server). The system is now robust enough to cope with the
unforeseen disappearance of a votetaker at any stage in the process.

What made this particular instance so long-winded is that Pedt went
off-net shortly after telling UKV that he was about to issue the
results. Had he disapeared right at the start of the process, or even
midway through it, someone else could have picked up the ball and got
things completed within the original timescale. But his absence came
at the worst possible moment, not least because we were all expecting
him to reappear any moment, apologise for the delay and then issue the
results. Deciding how long to leave it before someone else takes over
is always difficult in this kind of situation; if you do it too soon
and the other person reappears shortly afterwards then you've done
nothing more useful than duplicate all the effort. But newsgroup
creation is *not* a time-sensitive matter; obviously it's good to get
things done and dusted as soon as possible but there is absolutely no
need, ever, to rush. Our initial efforts, therefore, were all directed
at re-establishing contact with Pedt, and that of necessity takes time
- you can't expect that emails will be read, or phone messages heard,
immediately and responded to straight away. So it was only after we
concluded that Pedt probably wasn't going to resurface in tme to
complete the process that someone else needed to take over, and that
person then needed to spend at least a reasonable amount of time doing
the same thing that Pedt had already done. 

Remember, everyone involved in this is a volunteer, and has a real
life life outside Usenet that has to take precedence. And when groups
of volunteers are involved, comunicating by email, discussions can be
quite lengthy as you need to allow enough time for at least a majority
of participants to respond before making any decisions. UKV does at
least have a lead co-ordinator who can, if necessary, act on his own
initiative, but the committee has no leader, chair or spokesman and
can only act after a consensus (or obvious majority) has emerged from
the discussion. And all this took place over the holiday period; there
were times during the discussions when several participants were AFK.
So I don't think that, realistically, the situation could have been
handled much quicker, and nor do I think it *should* have been handled
any quicker - from my perspective (which, admittedly, is that of the
informed insider rather than the waiting onlooker) I think that the
timings were pretty much right. I wouldn't have been comfortable with
someone else taking over the count significantly sooner, but when the
decision was made to do so I think it was right to take that action as
soon as possible.

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

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:22:08 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>Note the words "I'd suggest" twice in the second email, plus my
>description of the proposed wording as "something along the lines of".
>It's hard to see how that can be described as "imposing" my (or our)
>views, especially since they were given in response to an email which
>explicitly asked for a response. If you'd wanted a yes/no answer you
>should have asked for a yes/no answer; any reasonable person reading
>your email would assume that you were making a suggestion and inviting
>comments on it.

TBH Mark, I really wish we hadn't have bothered trying to help and let
him go his own way.  The discussion would probably still be going on
(as someone else mentioned earlier) and many would have lost interest,
or gnawed their typing fingers off in desperation.

I propose that if he is unhappy with the process and believes it was
manipulated or abused, and that he has a right to be aggrieved, we
declare the process null & void and let him start again, his own way.

David Damerell  wrote:

> Quoting  .m   :
> >If you don't like your pizza delivered in the way it is, why not fuck
> >off somewhere else that delivers the way you like it?
> 
> If this is how the Committee views its only proponents

No, it's how one Committee member views one proponent who, TBH, has been
an arse throughout.

> for four years, one does have to wonder what possible use the uk.* group
> creation process is to _anyone_.

It ensures that a need is demonstrated before a group is created and
that any groups created are sensibly located in the hierarchy and that
the group has a charter which encourages best practice among the users
of that group. It's a process which makes the uk.* hierarchy succesful,
well ordered and, mostly, a pleasure to use.

Sadly some spoiled brats always think they know better and thcweam and
thcweam until they are thick that "their" group isn't being created fast
enough for their liking.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:58:14 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>>Newsgroup creation is not in any way a time-sensitive issue. Pizza
>>delivery is.
>
>Needless to say being impatient may result in an unexpected topping.

"Topping" as in the old East End Colloquialism?

"Mark Goodge"  wrote ...

[snips]

> As previously stated, the ban on binaries and HTML *must* be part of
> the charter itself - it cannot be left to the moderation policy.
>
> This isn't a matter of opinion; it's mandated by the guidelines for
> group creation which explicitly state that "Binaries are allowed in
> uk.* only in hierarchies explicitly created for binary posts, and
> having a hierarchy charter stating this. In all other hierarchies the
> group charter shall state that binaries are not permitted".

To take Ian's side ( and I believe he has an entirely valid point here - as 
did jms when she raised a similar point ), it's no good saying 'a ban on 
HTML *must*  be part of the charter' and 'mandated so by guidelines' when 
it's not clearly mandated by guidelines, nor even referenced in where it's 
apparently explicitly stated.

> The usual wording in charters since that ruling was brought in is
> something along the lines of "Posts must be readable as plain text.
> HTML, RTF and similarly formatted messages are prohibited.

What "ruling" ? Why haven't the written guidelines been updated to reflect 
that ruling if such a thing has been brought in ? Don't the written 
guidelines themselves say there should have been an RFD to change the 
guidelines, maybe there was, but I cannot see any written evidence in public 
of any such rule or rule change.

Not surprising there is friction and people get pissed off.

I commented earlier this year on what I see as some committee members 
seemingly having their heads stuck up their arses, saying everything's 
perfect, A-okay, nothing needs changing, and if you don't agree stand for 
election to the committee or produce an RFD to change things. I can't see 
how it would be possible to be more dismissive and complacent than that. 
There's echoes of that now with 'MissingVoteGate'.

It seems to me that the committee is just a happy-go-lucky bunch ( nothing 
wrong with that BTW ) working to a few minimal written guidelines, making 
the rest of the rules up, claiming unwritten rules, precedent, or plucking 
them from the air, are quite happy with that and reluctant to change 
anything.

The written guidelines don't reflect what the committee members say the 
guidelines are, and vice-versa. I don't understand the reluctance to update 
the written guidelines to reflect what the guidelines are. That's not how I 
believe it should be, but, yes, I know; if I'm not happy with the way things 
are, if I want to change things .... yada, yada, yada.

While I have respect for the members of the committee as individuals, I have 
precious little for the committee.

In article ,
Mark Goodge   wrote:
>On 24 Sep 2009 16:07:40 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>
>>I really don't think it is beyond human ingenuity to spot single points of
>>failure in advance occasionally.
>
>Well, actually, the system of passing all the votes through the
>UKVoting server and archiving them en route was devised specifically
>in response to a similar situation like this in the past. So the
>votetaker *isn't* a single point of failure (if anything is, it's the
>central server). The system is now robust enough to cope with the
>unforeseen disappearance of a votetaker at any stage in the process.

So there really is very little point in disappearing a votetaker
if you dislike with the way the vote seems to be going.  Given the
level of acrimony in some votes, that's a necessary precaution for
their safety :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:45:40 -0500, Jon Ribbens put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>On 2009-09-24, Ian Jackson  wrote:
>> I'd also like to ask:  Does UKVoting have any procedures where they
>> will step in if results (or other parts of the processes) are
>> unreasonably delayed ?
>
>Yes - see http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/guidelines.html .
>They don't specific a magic deadline at which a votetaker is
>automatically replaced though, and I don't believe they should.
>
>> If there is such a process, why didn't it trigger ?  And once I had
>> escalated the matter to the UKVoting and the Committee, why did it
>> take a further two weeks to decide to have another votetaker deal with
>> the results ?
>
>It did "trigger". You seem to be assuming for some reason that
>*you* caused Pedt to be replaced, by emailing UKVoting/the Committee;
>this is not the case.

Indeed. I can confirm that the committee was already discussing the
matter prior to Ian's email.

>I don't see what's so hard to understand about it being highly
>suboptimal to replace the votetaker (especially when he has indicated
>the results are nearly complete) and therefore replacing him is an
>emergency alternative only considered as a last resort after all other
>alternatives have been exhausted.
>
>> It took three weeks from me escalating to the Committee and UKVoting
>> for the results to actually be posted.
>
>I don't have a problem with that.

Nor would I, if it was accurate.

Ian's first mail to the committee about the results was on Monday 7th
September. One week later, on 14th September, Jon emailed the
committee and Ian to say that if Pedt hadn't resurfaced by Wednesday
(the 16th) he would take over the vote. On the 20th September, Jon
produced a draft results statement. Following an abnormally (but, in
the circumstances, justifiably) brief period of peer review, the
results were sent to Control and posted on Monday 21st September.
That's two weeks, not three, from Ian's first mail to the committee to
publication. And, given that the committee (and, I presume, UKV) were
already discussing the matter prior to the 7th, it's extremely
unlikely that Ian's email actually made any difference to the
timescale.

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

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:D-g*wxURs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article ,
> Mike Bristow   wrote:
>>But I've not seen any of the mail between the committee and Ian,
>>so I really don't know what actually happened.
>
> Mark Goodge wrote a private email to me in his capacity as a member of
> the Committee[1], and CCing the Committee, on the 15th of June, saying
> that the ban on binaries and HTML was required to be part of the
> charter itself and that this was mandated by the Guidelines[2] [3].
>
> I read this email on the 16th of June and replied asking Control to
> hold off posting the 2nd RFD while I fixed it.  Later that day I had
> looked up the Guidelines and suggested (with my reasoning, see also
> [3]) adding just the following wording to the charter:
>   Binaries are forbidden.
>
> I asked for confirmation from Mark that this would meet with his
> approval.
>
> Mark replied telling me that the `usual wording' was the boilerplate
> as seen in the uk.legal.moderated charter.  He suggested that I copy
> that wording unless really wanted to do it differently.
>
> I replied explaining that:
>   Yes, I think I do want to do it differently, unless there's some
>   reason I shouldn't.
> I explained why: I thought the standard text was excessively verbose
> and detailed and that the discussion consensus had clearly been in
> favour of a short charter.  I proposed putting the boilerplate
> material (or something very like it) in the moderation policy.
> I asked for the opinions of other Committee members.
>
> In reply Kat sent me a mail which I still can't quite make out as
> supporting one view or the other, and Martyn Bailey replied telling me
> that a good reason was that I `[wanted] the group created'.
>
> All of this discussion took about two hours.  I capitulated, and sent
> a version of the 2nd RFD with the boilerplate to Control.
>
>
> I think there are several things wrong with the Committee's behaviour:
>
> * Mark misinterpreted the Guidelines and persisted to defend the
>   wrong interpretation as some kind of informal standard after I
>   pointed out the mistake.
>
> * The Committee were bikeshedding.  Mark should have replied `yes' to
>   my question asking whether `Binaries are forbidden' would suffice,
>   because it wasn't that important.
>
> * The Committee made these comments in private at the stage of
>   proposed publication of the RFD.  Instead they should in general
>   make their comments in public, unless publication of the RFD would
>   somehow be wrong in and of itself.
>
> * Overall the Commitee abused their privileged position to impose a
>   requirement which has no basis in the Guidelines document which is
>   supposed to govern their behaviour and their powers.
>
> The Committee abused its powers in a similar way to get the Summary of
> Discussion in the CFV altered, to remove the implication of lack of
> unanimity on the part of the Committee.
>
>
> [1] The Committee like to pretend that they only speak as a member of
>    the Committee when they explicitly say so.[4]  However Mark's email
>    was a reply to a copy of the draft 2nd RFD sent privately to the
>    Committee so he would not have had the opportunity to comment in
>    that way at that time had he not been on the Committee and I
>    regarded him as speaking in an official capacity, although subject
>    to possibly being overruled by the Committee as a whole if they
>    disagreeed.
>
> [2] I would prefer to quote from his email, which I think would be
>    proper to do, but it's not clear that everyone will agree.  If
>    Mark thinks I have misrepresented him he can post his words here
>    for himself.
>
> [3] Note that this is not in fact strictly speaking completely
>    accurate.  The Guidelines mandate that binaries are banned, but do
>    not insist on any mention of HTML.
>
> [4] Molly Mockford went so far as to say to me in private email that
>    Committee members' views do not carry any additional weight in
>    the (public) discussions of proposed newsgroups.  This is
>    obviously ridiculous but this position was maintained even when I
>    challenged it.

I'd have just gone for the recommended boilerplate. Some things are worth 
getting worked up about, this definitely isn't one of them.

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:24:46  
uk.net.news.config . m <nospam@notnominet.name.invalid>

>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:22:08 +0100, Mark Goodge
> wrote:
>
>>Note the words "I'd suggest" twice in the second email, plus my
>>description of the proposed wording as "something along the lines of".
>>It's hard to see how that can be described as "imposing" my (or our)
>>views, especially since they were given in response to an email which
>>explicitly asked for a response. If you'd wanted a yes/no answer you
>>should have asked for a yes/no answer; any reasonable person reading
>>your email would assume that you were making a suggestion and inviting
>>comments on it.
>
>TBH Mark, I really wish we hadn't have bothered trying to help and let
>him go his own way.  The discussion would probably still be going on
>(as someone else mentioned earlier) and many would have lost interest,
>or gnawed their typing fingers off in desperation.
>
>I propose that if he is unhappy with the process and believes it was
>manipulated or abused, and that he has a right to be aggrieved, we
>declare the process null & void and let him start again, his own way.

I'm sort of thinking that way too.  Give the wrong person a mile, etc.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:26:39  
uk.net.news.config . m <nospam@notnominet.name.invalid>

>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:58:14 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>>Newsgroup creation is not in any way a time-sensitive issue. Pizza
>>>delivery is.
>>
>>Needless to say being impatient may result in an unexpected topping.
>
>"Topping" as in the old East End Colloquialism?

According to my friend ejaculation ensures long life in the pizza 
business.  So not that sort of topping at all.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 24 Sep 2009 17:25:57 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>
>I think you are bringing the Committee into disrepute with this kind
>of comment.

It is increasingly clear how one person managed to reduce urc to a
shambles when they had assistance of this quality on the inside.

Mark Goodge  wrote:

> On 23 Sep 2009 11:46:21 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
> 
> >Personally I think it's absurd that it can take over four months to
> >create a moderated newsgroup which (as evidenced by the vote) is so
> >badly needed.
> 
> It's not "badly needed". It's strongly desired. There's an important
> difference. Usenet is a recreational pursuit, not a matter of life and
> death.

It wouldn't have been needed at all, had not the combative, aggressive
and let's face it, fuckwitted nature of Mr Jackson not been
representative of how the urc crowd treat all they see as outsiders.
There's a serious case of bunker mentality among (some of) the regulars
there.

Peter Parry  wrote:

> On 24 Sep 2009 17:25:57 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
>  wrote:
> 
> >
> >I think you are bringing the Committee into disrepute with this kind
> >of comment.
> 
> It is increasingly clear how one person managed to reduce urc to a
> shambles when they had assistance of this quality on the inside.

Sadly, there's more than one like that. They all seem to like "telling
it as it is" but don't like "listening to it as it most definitely is."

I wish them the best in their new playpen.

David Damerell  wrote:

> I really don't think it is beyond human ingenuity to spot single points of
> failure in advance occasionally.

There was no single point of failure. UK Voting had a failover mechanism
which was put into operation and which produced the result that got you,
and others, the moderated group that you want. It would help if you and
the rest of the urc crew didn't try to bolster your case with
ill-thought observations that are so far from the truth that they may
well be classed as lies.

The entire discussion was coloured by Jackson's inability to write a
fair summary, by the unwillingness to consider constructive comment and
the sheer pig-ignorance displayed by the proponent and his little chums
towards those trying to help him.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:25:39 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>At 16:59:21 on Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Ian Jackson 
> wrote in 
><D-g*wxURs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>
>>Mark Goodge wrote a private email to me in his capacity as a member of
>>the Committee[1], and CCing the Committee, on the 15th of June
>
>No.  Mark wrote to the Committee mailing list, and CCed you.  Look at 
>the e-mail headers.
>
>>In reply Kat sent me a mail
>
>Kat wrote to the Committee mailing list, adding you to the To: line. 
>Look at the e-mail headers.
>
>> * The Committee made these comments in private at the stage of
>>   proposed publication of the RFD.
>
>The Committee discussed this matter on the Committee's mailing list, 
>with copies to you where relevant.  This is not "in private" - it is how 
>the Committee is expected to proceed in such matters.
>
>>Instead they should in general    make their comments in public, unless 
>>publication of the RFD would    somehow be wrong in and of itself.
>
>You expect the Committee to conduct pre-RFD discussions in unnc?  What 
>on earth would be the point of that?  You would not even have got as far 
>as the first RFD if the discussions on its wording had been thrown open 
>to everybody.
>
>>[1] The Committee like to pretend that they only speak as a member of
>>    the Committee when they explicitly say so.[4]
>
>You are offensive in your language.  Committee members, when posting to 
>unnc/unnm, have always done so as individuals, as I am doing now.  Only 
>very rarely is a post made to the newsgroups on behalf of the Committee; 
>when that happens, the wording is discussed and agreed on the 
>Committee's mailing list, and it is made abundantly clear that it is an 
>official post on behalf of the Committee.
>
>>  However Mark's email
>>    was a reply to a copy of the draft 2nd RFD sent privately to the
>>    Committee so he would not have had the opportunity to comment in
>>    that way at that time had he not been on the Committee and I
>>    regarded him as speaking in an official capacity, although subject
>>    to possibly being overruled by the Committee as a whole if they
>>    disagreeed.
>
>You just have no idea of how mailing lists work, have you?  How you may 
>choose to "regard" something does not make it fact.


Wicked - you tell him.

However, I am not sure that you are right.  He has been running his
own system chiark for some time which handles mail perfectly well

The only (?) problem with chiark, is that it will not accept, forward,
or deliver emails from something like 1,000 million of the users of
email worldwide.

This is because Microsoft refuse to modify their systems in order to
make it compliant with chiark - which is very unreasonable of
Microsoft given that chiark is probably used by as many as twenty
people world wide


(This message is part of a thread in uk.net.news.config where Mr
Jackson is arguing with the UK Usenet Committee because they will not
do things in the way that Ian Jackson wants them to;  a bit like
Microsoft then)

jms  said:


>>
>> You just have no idea of how mailing lists work, have you?  How you
>> may choose to "regard" something does not make it fact.
>
>
> Wicked - you tell him.
>
> However, I am not sure that you are right.  He has been running his
> own system chiark for some time which handles mail perfectly well
>

Chiark is a mail server, not a mailing list.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:43:21 +0100, chris French
 wrote:

>In message 
><result-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090921182538$1085@gradwell.net>, Jon 
>Ribbens  writes
>>RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
>>
>>Summary: Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>
>>Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24
>
>I'm just loving how even the result of this has led to yet rambling 
>thread.


Yes I am sorry - it must be my fault.  I apologise.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:24:46 +0100, .m  
wrote:

<snip>


>I propose that if he is unhappy with the process and believes it was
>manipulated or abused, and that he has a right to be aggrieved, we
>declare the process null & void and let him start again, his own way.


Wicked - ask me, ask me...

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:25:25 +0100, "Wm...the lying fuckwit"
 wrote:

>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:57:08  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:15:47 +0100, "Wm...the lying fuckwit"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:41:23 <slrnhbkct0.kv4.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net>
>>>uk.net.news.config Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>
>>>
>>>>There is no vote that is missing from the
>>>>results.
>>>
>>>Quite.
>>
>>
>>You are a fool.
>>
>>How do *you* know that?
>
>I read the RESULT


Are you saying that there was not a missing vote?

I must have misinterpreted what a number of people were saying.

Thanks for the clarification - people may stop worrying about the
process then  - Wm.. says it is all OK.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:12:00  
uk.rec.cycling jms 

>The only (?) problem with chiark, is that it will not accept, forward,
>or deliver emails from something like 1,000 million of the users of
>email worldwide.

that is a big number.

I doubt the jms understands just how big it is.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:21:27 +0100, "kat" 
wrote:

>jms  said:
>
>
>>>
>>> You just have no idea of how mailing lists work, have you?  How you
>>> may choose to "regard" something does not make it fact.
>>
>>
>> Wicked - you tell him.
>>
>> However, I am not sure that you are right.  He has been running his
>> own system chiark for some time which handles mail perfectly well
>>
>
>Chiark is a mail server, not a mailing list.


Did I suggest it was?

-- 
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:  Pedal Cyclists : 527    Pedestrians 371
All casualties:  Pedal Cyclists : 3494    Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

At 23:46:34 on Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Wm... 
 wrote in 
<9iC5BecKb$uKFw3V@[127.0.0.1]>:

>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:12:00  
>uk.rec.cycling jms 
>
>>The only (?) problem with chiark, is that it will not accept, forward,
>>or deliver emails from something like 1,000 million of the users of
>>email worldwide.
>
>that is a big number.
>
>I doubt the jms understands just how big it is.

Do you realise that you are all cross-posting to cam.transport, as per 
the trolling activities of the jms entity?  FU set to urc, to try to get 
it out of unnc as well.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

In article <ZJPum.97965$OO7.91196@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
	The Happy Hippy  wrote:
> To take Ian's side ( and I believe he has an entirely valid point here - as 
> did jms when she raised a similar point ), it's no good saying 'a ban on 
> HTML *must*  be part of the charter' and 'mandated so by guidelines' when 
> it's not clearly mandated by guidelines, nor even referenced in where it's 
> apparently explicitly stated.

Rule 1 in the guidelines:

} Binaries are allowed in uk.* only in hierarchies explicitly created
} for binary posts, and having a hierarchy charter stating this. In
} all other hierarchies the group charter shall state that binaries
} are not permitted. In any uk.*  hierarchy or group whose charter
} does not mention binaries, the assumption shall be that binaries
} are forbidden.

It is reasonable to say that HTML, RTF etc are binaries (as, in the context
of usenet, binaries is usually taken to mean "not plain text").

>> The usual wording in charters since that ruling was brought in is
>> something along the lines of "Posts must be readable as plain text.
>> HTML, RTF and similarly formatted messages are prohibited.
>
> What "ruling" ? Why haven't the written guidelines been updated to reflect 
> that ruling if such a thing has been brought in ? Don't the written 
> guidelines themselves say there should have been an RFD to change the 
> guidelines, maybe there was, but I cannot see any written evidence in public 
> of any such rule or rule change.

Any documented process has to get a balance between:

 o) making the document very long and complex, but everything
 explicit 
 o) making the document very short, but lots of things are
 'generally understood'.

Getting the balance between the two is hard; part of the committees
job is to smooth things along by helping the proponent - who is not
and should not be an expert in the workings of uk.* .

In this case, I think the decisions made by the committee (to inform
Ian that a particular form of words should be used) was good and
correct, the only quibble may be the manner in which that was done
- it should have been clear to Ian that it although he had to ban
binaries (including html and rtf and postscript and...) the form
of words was a strong suggestion, not an absolute ruling, and that
chosing those words would - perhaps - avoid unncessary and pointless
bickering in unnc.

-- 
Please help Imogen May keep talking - www.imogenmay.com

At 19:09:40 on Thu, 24 Sep 2009, . m <nospam@notnominet.name.invalid> 
wrote in :

>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:06:14 +0100, Molly Mockford
> wrote:
>
>>And it's Ian who has accused the Committee of every possible deliberate
>>malfeasance short of the Ukrainian Famine of the 1931/32.
>
>Are you sure that wasn't one of ours?

Well, the extraneous "the" was certainly one of mine, which is clearly a 
gross crime against humanity, plus Ian Jackson.  But not, of course, one 
of mine as a Committee Member;  it was one of mine as a me.

(Any more of this and I'm going bipolar.  But I always liked Elizabeth 
Gaskell.  Ten points to whoever is first in solving those clues.)
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

At 20:20:39 on Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> 
wrote in <1j6kdcz.hlq68d1qjxkc2N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:

>David Damerell  wrote:
>
>> Quoting  .m   :
>> >If you don't like your pizza delivered in the way it is, why not fuck
>> >off somewhere else that delivers the way you like it?
>>
>> If this is how the Committee views its only proponents
>
>No, it's how one Committee member views one proponent who, TBH, has been
>an arse throughout.

And *waves hand* by no means the *only* proponent of a recent RFD, as 
has already been mentioned somewhere in this extremely tedious and 
repetitive thread.

>It ensures that a need is demonstrated before a group is created and
>that any groups created are sensibly located in the hierarchy and that
>the group has a charter which encourages best practice among the users
>of that group. It's a process which makes the uk.* hierarchy succesful,
>well ordered and, mostly, a pleasure to use.

Sometimes, Steve (not always, I grant you - but sometimes), one of your 
posts makes me want to cheer out loud at the sheer undeniable common 
sense of it, vividly and clearly expressed in an absolute minimum of 
words.  And this is one of them. :thumbs-up:
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

In article , Wm... wrote:
>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:48:13  
>uk.net.news.config Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid>
>>
>>Not relevant actually.  It's the procedure that is important in a
>>democratic process.
>
>Some of us are more worried about Pedt than your vote which wouldn't 
>have changed anything.

Discussion here is rather more likely to be able to improve the
procedure than to help Pedt. His going missing like that is both 
worrying and an exceptional disruption to the normal voting
process, and worrying shouldn't prevent discussion of the process.

jms  said:

> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:21:27 +0100, "kat" 
> wrote:
>
>> jms  said:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> You just have no idea of how mailing lists work, have you?  How you
>>>> may choose to "regard" something does not make it fact.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wicked - you tell him.
>>>
>>> However, I am not sure that you are right.  He has been running his
>>> own system chiark for some time which handles mail perfectly well
>>>
>>
>> Chiark is a mail server, not a mailing list.
>
>
> Did I suggest it was?


Yes.
-- 
kat
   >^..^<

In article <tNn3I7wgQBvKFw+x@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford wrote:
>
>Do you realise that you are all cross-posting to cam.transport, as per 
>the trolling activities of the jms entity?  FU set to urc, to try to get 
>it out of unnc as well.

Why? The trolling was about the group creation, not about cycling.
FU now set more appropriately.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:21:27 +0100, "kat" 
wrote:

>> However, I am not sure that you are right.  He has been running his
>> own system chiark for some time which handles mail perfectly well
>>
>
>Chiark is a mail server, not a mailing list.

Shades of Cummins?

In article , 
clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk says...

> > I think there are several things wrong with the Committee's 
behaviour:
> 

Such as?

My main concern atm, is that Ian was apparently included in the 
committee list, which I'm not convinced was a healthy thing to do. Maybe 
it's always been done like that, but that practice will bite the biscuit 
handling appendage at some point or other.

-- 
Alan LeHun

kat wrote:
> jms  said:
> 
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:21:27 +0100, "kat" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> jms  said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> You just have no idea of how mailing lists work, have you?  How you
>>>>> may choose to "regard" something does not make it fact.
>>>>
>>>> Wicked - you tell him.
>>>>
>>>> However, I am not sure that you are right.  He has been running his
>>>> own system chiark for some time which handles mail perfectly well
>>>>
>>> Chiark is a mail server, not a mailing list.
>>
>> Did I suggest it was?
> 
> 
> Yes.

Also missed was the insistence that everyone on chiark was all chummy 
and cosy and working to the same agenda.
Recent posts (and past ones) proved otherwise.
-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Alan LeHun  said:

> In article ,
> clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk says...
>
>>> I think there are several things wrong with the Committee's
>>> behaviour:
>>
>
> Such as?
>
> My main concern atm, is that Ian was apparently included in the
> committee list, which I'm not convinced was a healthy thing to do.
> Maybe it's always been done like that, but that practice will bite
> the biscuit handling appendage at some point or other.

He wasn't included in the list, some of the mails to the list ( those 
relevant ) were copied to him, after he wrote to the committee.  I chose 
that he saw what I wrote, he didn't get it automatically.  I assume that 
goes for the rest of the committee too.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:35:24 +0100, Alan LeHun  wrote:

>My main concern atm, is that Ian was apparently included in the 
>committee list,

Only Elected and Appointed committee members are included in the
committee mailing list.

>which I'm not convinced was a healthy thing to do. Maybe 
>it's always been done like that, but that practice will bite the biscuit 
>handling appendage at some point or other.

To clarify, adding to what Mark, Molly and Kat have already said,
Jackson was c.c.'d in on _some_ of the relevant discussion following
and at times responding directly to, his emails sent to the committee.

This is quite common.

In article ,
 Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes:
>Does this end this thread under Godwin's?

If only... But I fear that it will continue for weeks if not months. I'm
only still reading it in the hope of coming across a post saying that
Pedt is OK.
-- 
John Hall     "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
              "Well, actually, they're American."
      "So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
                                  Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:24:12 +0100, John Hall
 wrote:

>I'm only still reading it in the hope of coming 
>across a post saying that Pedt is OK.

I wouldn't bother sticking with a thread just to wait for that
(hopefully soon) news.  When it arrives I expect usenet will explode
with "TFFT" messages.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:33:59 +0100, Mike Bristow 
wrote:

>In this case, I think the decisions made by the committee (to inform
>Ian that a particular form of words should be used) was good and
>correct, the only quibble may be the manner in which that was done
>- it should have been clear to Ian that it although he had to ban
>binaries (including html and rtf and postscript and...) the form
>of words was a strong suggestion, not an absolute ruling, and that
>chosing those words would - perhaps - avoid unncessary and pointless
>bickering in unnc.


That's what we (from my reading of the correspondence) endeavoured to
do.  If the proponent had taken our advice at face value instead of
looking for hidden meanings there would not have been a problem.  And
if he wants to publish anything I wrote, he is welcome to do so.

BTW I have an address for Pedt and will be passing through Wrexham
tomorrow so I'm going to knock on the door unless anyone has heard
from him.
-- 
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Put thecat out to email

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:07:54 +0100, "kat" 
wrote:

>jms  said:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:21:27 +0100, "kat" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> jms  said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You just have no idea of how mailing lists work, have you?  How you
>>>>> may choose to "regard" something does not make it fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wicked - you tell him.
>>>>
>>>> However, I am not sure that you are right.  He has been running his
>>>> own system chiark for some time which handles mail perfectly well
>>>>
>>>
>>> Chiark is a mail server, not a mailing list.
>>
>>
>> Did I suggest it was?
>
>
>Yes.


Rubbish - feel free to point out the precise bit where you think I
did.

You accused him of not knowing how to configure/use a mailing list.

I purely took the opportunity to point out that he can't (or won't)
configure his "system" (not just a email server, not just a mailing
list) correctly so I am not surprised that he can't configure a
mailing list which is a simple  task.

Also - if you were paying attention - precisely the same comments have
been made in the past.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:51:44 <tNn3I7wgQBvKFw+x@molly.mockford> 
uk.net.news.config Molly Mockford 

>At 23:46:34 on Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Wm... 
> wrote in 
><9iC5BecKb$uKFw3V@[127.0.0.1]>:
>
>>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:12:00  
>>uk.rec.cycling jms 
>>
>>>The only (?) problem with chiark, is that it will not accept, forward,
>>>or deliver emails from something like 1,000 million of the users of
>>>email worldwide.
>>
>>that is a big number.
>>
>>I doubt the jms understands just how big it is.
>
>Do you realise that you are all cross-posting to cam.transport, as per 
>the trolling activities of the jms entity?  FU set to urc, to try to 
>get it out of unnc as well.

I should have noticed that but didn't.  Apols to all.

re the fu setting, urc doesn't want it any more than cam.transport 
either, really.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:40:29 +0100, .m  
wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:24:12 +0100, John Hall
> wrote:
>
>>I'm only still reading it in the hope of coming 
>>across a post saying that Pedt is OK.
>
>I wouldn't bother sticking with a thread just to wait for that
>(hopefully soon) news.  When it arrives I expect usenet will explode
>with "TFFT" messages.


 the phrase for the current  activity which many urcers are indulging
in regarding Pedt is a wanckry; it gives them much pleasure.
--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:43:39  
uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow 

>BTW I have an address for Pedt and will be passing through Wrexham
>tomorrow so I'm going to knock on the door unless anyone has heard
>from him.

I think you can easily take a number of people's good wishes with you.

Dunno about anyone else but I'm hoping for good news rather than bad.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:43:39 +0100, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>BTW I have an address for Pedt and will be passing through Wrexham
>tomorrow so I'm going to knock on the door

I hope the worst you find is a note on the door saying his 6 numbers
came up on the lotto and he's realised there's more to life than
keyboardy exploits.

Mike Bristow  wrote:
> 
> In this case, I think the decisions made by the committee (to inform
> Ian that a particular form of words should be used) was good and
> correct, the only quibble may be the manner in which that was done
> - it should have been clear to Ian that it although he had to ban
> binaries (including html and rtf and postscript and...) the form
> of words was a strong suggestion, not an absolute ruling, and that
> chosing those words would - perhaps - avoid unncessary and pointless
> bickering in unnc.

But urc is the home of pointless bickering, crossposting anything there
will always attract the usual suspects.
Such is life, and one of the biggest reasons that urcm is needed.

jms  said:

> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:07:54 +0100, "kat" 
> wrote:
>
>> jms  said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:21:27 +0100, "kat" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jms  said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just have no idea of how mailing lists work, have you?  How
>>>>>> you may choose to "regard" something does not make it fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wicked - you tell him.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I am not sure that you are right.  He has been running
>>>>> his own system chiark for some time which handles mail perfectly
>>>>> well
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chiark is a mail server, not a mailing list.
>>>
>>>
>>> Did I suggest it was?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
> Rubbish - feel free to point out the precise bit where you think I did


Molly - You just have no idea of how mailing lists work, have you?

jms - I am not sure that you are right.  He has been running
 his own system chiark for some time which handles mail perfectly
 well



> You accused him of not knowing how to configure/use a mailing list.

 I am not Molly.  Do you actually read posts or just tack on a rant?  As you 
did yet again?


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

"Alan LeHun"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.25269127447b75199896c4@news.x-privat.org...
> In article ,
> clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk says...
>
>> > I think there are several things wrong with the Committee's
> behaviour:
>>
>
> Such as?

Ahem, check your attributions.

In article , 
clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk says...

> Ahem, check your attributions.
> 

I didn't think it was worth asking Ian ;)

Gravity bug I'm afraid. The quote ident is there but gravity for some 
reason puts that one line in the non-quoted font.

I was wondering what complaints you could have. 

Ho hum.

-- 
Alan LeHun

"Mike Bristow"  wrote ...

> In article <ZJPum.97965$OO7.91196@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> The Happy Hippy  wrote:
>> To take Ian's side ( and I believe he has an entirely valid point here - 
>> as
>> did jms when she raised a similar point ), it's no good saying 'a ban on
>> HTML *must*  be part of the charter' and 'mandated so by guidelines' when
>> it's not clearly mandated by guidelines, nor even referenced in where 
>> it's
>> apparently explicitly stated.
>
> Rule 1 in the guidelines:
>
> } Binaries are allowed in uk.* only in hierarchies explicitly created
> } for binary posts, and having a hierarchy charter stating this. In
> } all other hierarchies the group charter shall state that binaries
> } are not permitted. In any uk.*  hierarchy or group whose charter
> } does not mention binaries, the assumption shall be that binaries
> } are forbidden.
>
> It is reasonable to say that HTML, RTF etc are binaries (as, in the 
> context
> of usenet, binaries is usually taken to mean "not plain text").

Except HTML is very much plain text, as I know having created all my HTMLL 
pages in an MS-DOS ASCII text editor. Of course you could claim everything 
is binary if you wanted to.


>>> The usual wording in charters since that ruling was brought in is
>>> something along the lines of "Posts must be readable as plain text.
>>> HTML, RTF and similarly formatted messages are prohibited.
>>
>> What "ruling" ? Why haven't the written guidelines been updated to 
>> reflect
>> that ruling if such a thing has been brought in ? Don't the written
>> guidelines themselves say there should have been an RFD to change the
>> guidelines, maybe there was, but I cannot see any written evidence in 
>> public
>> of any such rule or rule change.
>
> Any documented process has to get a balance between:
>
> o) making the document very long and complex, but everything
> explicit
> o) making the document very short, but lots of things are
> 'generally understood'.

Sounds like excuse making to me. As I said, there seems to be total 
reluctance to change the written guidelines.

Just how hard is it to add, "HTML is not permitted" ?

Seriously.

And would it really make the guidelines any longer, or less understandable ?

No.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:30:33 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"
 wrote:

>Sounds like excuse making to me. 

Sounded perfectly rational to me.

>As I said, there seems to be total 
>reluctance to change the written guidelines.

I'm not sure that's a true assessment either.  I accept that things
change and this should perhaps be reflected (such as no longer
bothering with suggesting stuph should go on an ftp server or
somesuch), but it's only 'really important' to certain people, at
certain times and in certain circumstances.

If you like, why not suggest - as you do here:

>Just how hard is it to add, "HTML is not permitted" ?

minor changes and modifications that you think would more
appropriately - and succinctly reflect the need and roolz.  
Note that I'm not responding with what you'd probably expect, i.e.,
"you're free to submit an RFD", but neither am I suggesting it's the
job of the komite to do it for you.  The uk. hierarchy isn't really
anything to do with the committee - they/we are there to ensure good
governance, not make it up as we see fit - that's your/our job as
individuals who contribute to, and are a part of uk.*

>And would it really make the guidelines any longer, or less understandable ?

Possibly yes, possibly no - but that'll only be agreed when it's
opened up for discussion - and you know as well as I that as soon as
any such RFD hits unn* - there will be a LOT of very 'helpful'
suggestions!

On 24 Sep 2009 16:59:21 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

<giant snippage>

Ian, nobody likes a sore loser, and a sore winner is even less
popular.  

 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:59:00  
uk.net.news.config "Just zis Guy, you know?" 

>On 24 Sep 2009 16:59:21 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>
><giant snippage>
>
>Ian, nobody likes a sore loser, and a sore winner is even less
>popular.

Ouch.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:30:33 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"
 wrote in
<d%7vm.98274$OO7.3753@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>Except HTML is very much plain text, as I know having created all my HTMLL 
>pages in an MS-DOS ASCII text editor. Of course you could claim everything 
>is binary if you wanted to.

And thus you demonstrate exactly why deviating from the conventional
form of words can lead to a prolonged and tedious debate that generally
ends up achieving nothing.

HTML is clearly not plain text - if it were there would be neither a
need for the text/html media type nor a need for any display software to
decode the markup.

-- 
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

Quoting  Mark Goodge  :
>On 24 Sep 2009 16:59:21 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>> saying
>>that the ban on binaries and HTML was required to be part of the
>>charter itself and that this was mandated by the Guidelines[2] [3].
>Which is the case, as can be seen from reading the guidelines
>themselves at http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html

Which is not the case. The string "HTML" appears nowhere on that page.
-- 
David Damerell  Kill the tomato!
Yesterday was Saturday, September - a weekend.
Today is Sunday, September - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be First Gloucesterday, September.

On 26 Sep 2009 03:30:34 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Quoting  Mark Goodge  :
>>On 24 Sep 2009 16:59:21 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson put finger to
>>keyboard and typed:
>>> saying
>>>that the ban on binaries and HTML was required to be part of the
>>>charter itself and that this was mandated by the Guidelines[2] [3].
>>Which is the case, as can be seen from reading the guidelines
>>themselves at http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html
>
>Which is not the case. The string "HTML" appears nowhere on that page.

Well, if you want to be pedantic, the ban on binaries has to be part
of the charter. It has previously been established that anything
posted with a Content-type of anything other than plain text counts as
a binary. The guidelines themselves don't actually say that, but
that's been the interpretation of them for as long as I can remember.

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

"The Happy Hippy"  writes:
> "Mike Bristow"  wrote ...

>> It is reasonable to say that HTML, RTF etc are binaries (as, in the
>> context of usenet, binaries is usually taken to mean "not plain
>> text").

I think this is wrong; binaries are generally banned because they cause
practical problems to server operators, illustrated by e.g.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/newsserver/newsvolume.html
But HTML is considered because not all clients support it (and to some
out of a preference for the simplicity of un-marked-up plain text).

> Just how hard is it to add, "HTML is not permitted" ?

Submit an RFD and find out?  Probably 'not very', I doubt it would be
a very controversial change.  Whether you think there's enough danger
of people posting HTML, or that a line in a charter would make any
difference if they did, to make it worthwhile, is another question.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:30:33 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"
 wrote:

> Except HTML is very much plain text,

Source codes in interpreted languages are texts.  But as the texts are not
what is expected to be viewed, I don't see how it qualifies as being plain.

Tony

"Owen Rees"  wrote ...

> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:30:33 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"
>  wrote in
> <d%7vm.98274$OO7.3753@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>>Except HTML is very much plain text, as I know having created all my HTMLL
>>pages in an MS-DOS ASCII text editor. Of course you could claim everything
>>is binary if you wanted to.
>
> And thus you demonstrate exactly why deviating from the conventional
> form of words can lead to a prolonged and tedious debate that generally
> ends up achieving nothing.
>
> HTML is clearly not plain text

<html>
  <body>
    If you say so
  </body>
</html>

> - if it were there would be neither a
> need for the text/html media type nor a need for any display software to
> decode the markup.

The fact that there is a need for the media type is because it would 
otherwise be shown as plain text. The only reason plaintext HTML is turned 
into something else is because a client chooses to render it other than 
present it as plaintext.

But the whole issue is descending into argument on what loose generic terms 
actually mean in specific practice. Which is why, IMO, it's far better to be 
specific within the guidelines about what one means rather than leaving it 
open to interpretation, and especially when the 'official interpretation' is 
held as an unwritten rule.

It seems odd to me that 'the usual wording' is to make it clear in a charter 
that HTML is specifically not permitted, while it's argued that the wording 
in the guidelines is obviously intended to include HTML as not permitted. 
Seems to be a case of wanting to have ones cake and eat it; guidelines are 
clear enough without specifying HTML explicitly, charter wording would not 
be seen as such without specifying it explicitly.

"Mark Goodge"  wrote ...

> On 26 Sep 2009 03:30:34 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>>Quoting  Mark Goodge  :
>>>On 24 Sep 2009 16:59:21 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson put finger to
>>>keyboard and typed:
>>>> saying
>>>>that the ban on binaries and HTML was required to be part of the
>>>>charter itself and that this was mandated by the Guidelines[2] [3].
>>>Which is the case, as can be seen from reading the guidelines
>>>themselves at http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html
>>
>>Which is not the case. The string "HTML" appears nowhere on that page.
>
> Well, if you want to be pedantic, the ban on binaries has to be part
> of the charter. It has previously been established that anything
> posted with a Content-type of anything other than plain text counts as
> a binary.

> The guidelines themselves don't actually say that, but
> that's been the interpretation of them for as long as I can remember.

That's the problem; how are people meant to know what interpretation and 
unwritten rules should be if not written down and documented formally ?

The Terms of Reference of the UK committee state, "It will ensure that the 
rules for group creation are documented, followed and applied". It's hard 
for me to see how that is being followed when there are such undocumented 
aspects.

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote ...

> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:30:33 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"
>  wrote:
>
>> Except HTML is very much plain text,
>
> Source codes in interpreted languages are texts.  But as the texts are not
> what is expected to be viewed, I don't see how it qualifies as being 
> plain.

That's an issue of how any particular file can/may be rendered by a client 
not on the nature of what a particular file is.

It all depends on what ones definition of a loose generic term like 
"plaintext" means and in what context.

In uk.net.news.config, "The Happy Hippy"
 wrote:

>The Terms of Reference of the UK committee state, "It will ensure that the 
>rules for group creation are documented, followed and applied". It's hard 
>for me to see how that is being followed when there are such undocumented 
>aspects. 

Then post an RFD with your proposed changes (using the right process).

Anyone who believes strongly enough to argue the toss over this should
consider writing an RFD to have the guidelines updated, imo.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:10:09 GMT, The Happy Hippy put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>
>"Mark Goodge"  wrote ...
>
>> On 26 Sep 2009 03:30:34 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>>Quoting  Mark Goodge  :
>>>>On 24 Sep 2009 16:59:21 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson put finger to
>>>>keyboard and typed:
>>>>> saying
>>>>>that the ban on binaries and HTML was required to be part of the
>>>>>charter itself and that this was mandated by the Guidelines[2] [3].
>>>>Which is the case, as can be seen from reading the guidelines
>>>>themselves at http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html
>>>
>>>Which is not the case. The string "HTML" appears nowhere on that page.
>>
>> Well, if you want to be pedantic, the ban on binaries has to be part
>> of the charter. It has previously been established that anything
>> posted with a Content-type of anything other than plain text counts as
>> a binary.
>
>> The guidelines themselves don't actually say that, but
>> that's been the interpretation of them for as long as I can remember.
>
>That's the problem; how are people meant to know what interpretation and 
>unwritten rules should be if not written down and documented formally ?

They can ask, if they're unsure.

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

In article <l9qvm.98552$OO7.1938@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
	The Happy Hippy  wrote:
> That's the problem; how are people meant to know what interpretation and 
> unwritten rules should be if not written down and documented formally ?

By listening to the advice offered to them by the committee?  (Except
the proponent didn't like that option).  

-- 
Please help Imogen May keep talking - www.imogenmay.com

"Mike Bristow"  wrote ...

> In article <l9qvm.98552$OO7.1938@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> The Happy Hippy  wrote:
>> That's the problem; how are people meant to know what interpretation and
>> unwritten rules should be if not written down and documented formally ?
>
> By listening to the advice offered to them by the committee?  (Except
> the proponent didn't like that option).

I'll leave it to proponent to answer whether they liked that option or not, 
but if I were told to follow the guidelines, offered up "Binaries are not 
premitted", exactly as mandated, then was told that wasn't the usual 
wording, I'd wonder why the guidelines didn't point me to the usual wording 
to start with, wonder what else one was expected to know that wasn't written 
down. Wonder if people were deliberatly trying to waste my time, making it 
overly difficult, had some reason not to want to make it as easy and 
painless as possible.

It's a bit Kafkaesque at best: Fill in this form. Okay, here it is. No; you 
didn't fill in the other form.

Can you imagine living by legislation and rules which did not actually 
define what you are not allowed to do, had to ask to know ?

I'd consider it a cack-handed and frustrating way to run things and very 
likely express my displeasure at the end of the process.

In article <lftvm.98599$OO7.47029@text.news.virginmedia.com>, 
the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.com says...


> Can you imagine living by legislation and rules which did not actually 
> define what you are not allowed to do, had to ask to know ?
> 

Imagine it! I remember it!

> I'd consider it a cack-handed and frustrating way to run things and very 
> likely express my displeasure at the end of the process. 
> 
> 

Unfortunately, that is the way this country is going. You see it most in 
civil service and public service posts whereby the ability to think is 
being constantly eroded and vocational enterprise is being shrouded in 
red tape and bureaucracy. Decisions are mandated in flowcharts and 
individual commonsense is relentlessly squeezed out of existence. I miss 
being able to talk my way out of a parking ticket but it simply isn't 
possible these days. The poor warden has a series of tick boxes and is 
not allowed to deviate from it, even if reason and logic dictate 
otherwise.

You might be looking forward to having your life mapped out by Herr 
Brown and successors as a series of tick boxes and flowcharts. I shall 
resist it always.


-- 
Alan LeHun

"Alan LeHun"  wrote ...

> In article <lftvm.98599$OO7.47029@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.com says...
>
>
>> Can you imagine living by legislation and rules which did not actually
>> define what you are not allowed to do, had to ask to know ?
>>
>
> Imagine it! I remember it!
>
>> I'd consider it a cack-handed and frustrating way to run things and very
>> likely express my displeasure at the end of the process.
>>
>>
>
> Unfortunately, that is the way this country is going. You see it most in
> civil service and public service posts whereby the ability to think is
> being constantly eroded and vocational enterprise is being shrouded in
> red tape and bureaucracy. Decisions are mandated in flowcharts and
> individual commonsense is relentlessly squeezed out of existence. I miss
> being able to talk my way out of a parking ticket but it simply isn't
> possible these days. The poor warden has a series of tick boxes and is
> not allowed to deviate from it, even if reason and logic dictate
> otherwise.
>
> You might be looking forward to having your life mapped out by Herr
> Brown and successors as a series of tick boxes and flowcharts. I shall
> resist it always.

Note what I want or am wishing for. But I don't want a world where the rules 
are unwritten and I don't know when I'm going to be detained for stepping 
over some unwritten line.

In article <lftvm.98599$OO7.47029@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
	The Happy Hippy  wrote:
> It's a bit Kafkaesque at best: Fill in this form. Okay, here it is. No; you 
> didn't fill in the other form.

With respect, bollocks.  It's closer to "Fill in this form", "OK, here it
is", "Oooh.  You'd have more luck if you filled it out like <this>, but
it's up to you".

[ Or, at least, that's how it should/could be; not being privy to
the actual mails between Ian and the committee I couldn't say how it was ].

However, I think I've already expressed this view clearly:  I'm not going
to repeat myself again and again and again, so I'll stop here.

-- 
Please help Imogen May keep talking - www.imogenmay.com

Mark Goodge  writes:
> David Damerell put finger to keyboard and typed:

>> Which is not the case. The string "HTML" appears nowhere on that page.
>
> Well, if you want to be pedantic, the ban on binaries has to be part
> of the charter. It has previously been established that anything
> posted with a Content-type of anything other than plain text counts
> as a binary.

If "HTML are binaries" is good enough when interpreting the
guidelines, why isn't it when interpreting charters?

> The guidelines themselves don't actually say that, but that's been
> the interpretation of them for as long as I can remember.

...although to my mind, this is just plain wrong.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

In article , Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>Mark Goodge  writes:
>> David Damerell put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>> Which is not the case. The string "HTML" appears nowhere on that page.
>>
>> Well, if you want to be pedantic, the ban on binaries has to be part
>> of the charter. It has previously been established that anything
>> posted with a Content-type of anything other than plain text counts
>> as a binary.
>
>If "HTML are binaries" is good enough when interpreting the
>guidelines, why isn't it when interpreting charters?

<devil's advocate>
Because the charters should be immediately clear to all potential posters,
but the guidelines are an input into a process with mandatory discussion
which gives an opportunity to resolve ambiguity.
</devil's advocate>

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:33:53 +0100, Mike Bristow 
wrote:

>In article <lftvm.98599$OO7.47029@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
>	The Happy Hippy  wrote:
>> It's a bit Kafkaesque at best: Fill in this form. Okay, here it is. No; you 
>> didn't fill in the other form.
>
>With respect, bollocks.  It's closer to "Fill in this form", "OK, here it
>is", "Oooh.  You'd have more luck if you filled it out like <this>, but
>it's up to you".
>
>[ Or, at least, that's how it should/could be; not being privy to
>the actual mails between Ian and the committee I couldn't say how it was ].

That's pretty much how I remember it.  

About the use of boilerplate, I said

"Re-invent the wheel if you like but we already have a standard form
of words."

Ian said that he wanted to do it differently unless there was a good
reason not to.  Martyn said that a good reason may be that he wanted
the group created and then qualified it with a very clear explanation
re-iterating what I had said and saying that it made sense to use
something that would not cause debate and asking Ian why he wanted to
use a form of words that might cause extra debate, work and further
squabbles.

I think Ian must have stopped reading at the first line because he
came back with:

>Martyn Bailey writes ("Re: RFD: uk.rec.cycling.moderated"):
>> I'd say a good reason would be that you want the group created.

>OK, I get the message.

He clearly didn't and perhaps this goes some way to explaining why we
are giving Ian such short shrift.


-- 
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Put thecat out to email

In  Mark Goodge  writes:

>Well, if you want to be pedantic, the ban on binaries has to be part
>of the charter. It has previously been established that anything
>posted with a Content-type of anything other than plain text counts as
>a binary. The guidelines themselves don't actually say that, but
>that's been the interpretation of them for as long as I can remember.

I think I would disagree with that interpretation. HTMLs are not binaries
(since, when displayed as text they can indeed be interpreted by a
sufficiently perseverent reader).

BUT the point about HTMLs is that they are regarded as exceedingly poor
netiquette not only within uk.*, but within Usenet as a whole, and their
use within _any_ group is likely to lead to intense flamage and threats of
LARTing to the perpetrator's ISP. The reason is simple: many newsreaders
(mine included) do not display HMTL except as the underlying text, and the
reason they do not do so is that they recognise that HTML was never an
intended Usenet practice, and hence there was therefore no point in doing
so.

With Email it is different, since it has become acceptable (for some value
of 'able') to use it (a habit initiated by Microshit who still set it as
the default for email, though they were long ago flamed into leaving the
default for Usenet at plain text). Hence those User Agents designed
primarily for email (and which make a passing attempt to handle news as
well) will usually render HTML as such.

Binaries OTOH are NOT in general forbidden on Usenet, though again
established netiquette severely discourages them except in those groups
where they traditionally occur. THAT is the rule which is specifically
enforced in uk.* - but that still does not imply that HTML is welcomed,
because it is still contrary to accepted global Usenet practice.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

Quoting  Mark Goodge  :
>David Damerell put finger to
>>Which is not the case. The string "HTML" appears nowhere on that page.
>Well, if you want to be pedantic, the ban on binaries has to be part
>of the charter. It has previously been established that anything
>posted with a Content-type of anything other than plain text counts as
>a binary. The guidelines themselves don't actually say that, but
>that's been the interpretation of them for as long as I can remember.

So that's another unwritten rule. And a ridiculous one, to boot; if I
produce an HTML article with no Content-Type that is just as undesirable.
-- 
David Damerell  flcl?
Yesterday was First Leicesterday, September.
Today is First Brieday, September.
Tomorrow will be First Gouday, September.

On 2009-09-29, David Damerell  wrote:
> Quoting  Mark Goodge  :
>>David Damerell put finger to
>>>Which is not the case. The string "HTML" appears nowhere on that page.
>>Well, if you want to be pedantic, the ban on binaries has to be part
>>of the charter. It has previously been established that anything
>>posted with a Content-type of anything other than plain text counts as
>>a binary. The guidelines themselves don't actually say that, but
>>that's been the interpretation of them for as long as I can remember.
>
> So that's another unwritten rule. And a ridiculous one, to boot; if I
> produce an HTML article with no Content-Type that is just as undesirable.

Oh, please stop being an imbecile.

HTML is not plain text. Therefore HTML is binary. Therefore it is not
allowed in uk.* newsgroups.

I'm not sure how to make that any easier to understand for you.

Quoting  Jon Ribbens  <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>:
>On 2009-09-29, David Damerell  wrote:
>> Quoting  Mark Goodge  :
>>>Well, if you want to be pedantic, the ban on binaries has to be part
>>>of the charter. It has previously been established that anything
>>>posted with a Content-type of anything other than plain text counts as
>>>a binary.
>>So that's another unwritten rule. And a ridiculous one, to boot; if I
>>produce an HTML article with no Content-Type that is just as undesirable.
>HTML is not plain text. Therefore HTML is binary.

Perhaps you should tell Mark Goodge that. His definition of "binary" is
different, as you can see above (and of course both definitions are
different to the normally used one).

You'd better let Charles Lindsey know, too. He's using yet another
definition.

>Therefore it is not allowed in uk.* newsgroups.

If "binary" is simply defined as "not plain text", why don't the
Guidelines mandate "plain text", rather than "no binaries" with a secret
definition of "binary" that one Committee member and Control don't even
use?
-- 
David Damerell  Kill the tomato!
Yesterday was First Leicesterday, September.
Today is First Brieday, September.
Tomorrow will be First Gouday, September.

On 29 Sep 2009 15:37:41 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote in
<fib*TBiSs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

>So that's another unwritten rule. And a ridiculous one, to boot; if I
>produce an HTML article with no Content-Type that is just as undesirable.

In a group on web authoring (the uk.* hierarchy has one) it might be
entirely reasonable to post HTML and intend it to be viewed as plain
text (i.e. showing the markup to the readers). In such a case, having no
MIME headers is entirely reasonable (and I hope all readers are aware
that a Content-Type header by itself is not sufficient to identify the
message as intended to be interpreted as the designated media type).

Perhaps those who think it would be a good idea to write down a precise
and accurate specification of what should and should not be prohibited
in messages posted to those parts of the uk.* hirearchy that do not have
different rules would like to try to produce such a specification and a
convincing argument that it allows all messages that should be allowed
and prohibits all messages that should be prohibited. Anything less
means that some parts of the rules (to the extent that they are rules)
are unwritten. I would be happy to assist by questioning every
assumption about the meaning of every term in such a specification, by
questioning what the specifcation is attempting to achieve, and by
questioning whether or not the specification has been shown to achieve
the intended effect in every possible case, including the introduction
onto the internet of as yet not invented messaging formats and
standards.

We could start by debating whether such debate should continue here or
be moved to unnm. Wherever it occurs, I am sure we could have a lively
and long-running discussion.

-- 
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

On 2009-09-29, David Damerell  wrote:
> Quoting  Jon Ribbens  <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>:
>>On 2009-09-29, David Damerell  wrote:
>>> Quoting  Mark Goodge  :
>>>>Well, if you want to be pedantic, the ban on binaries has to be part
>>>>of the charter. It has previously been established that anything
>>>>posted with a Content-type of anything other than plain text counts as
>>>>a binary.
>>>So that's another unwritten rule. And a ridiculous one, to boot; if I
>>>produce an HTML article with no Content-Type that is just as undesirable.
>>HTML is not plain text. Therefore HTML is binary.
>
> Perhaps you should tell Mark Goodge that. His definition of "binary" is
> different, as you can see above (and of course both definitions are
> different to the normally used one).
>
> You'd better let Charles Lindsey know, too. He's using yet another
> definition.
>
>>Therefore it is not allowed in uk.* newsgroups.
>
> If "binary" is simply defined as "not plain text", why don't the
> Guidelines mandate "plain text", rather than "no binaries" with a secret
> definition of "binary" that one Committee member and Control don't even
> use?

David, you are starting to sound like someone who _wants_ to send html
to usenet.  Is that really your intention?

The rules work well enough, especially if people write compliant
newsreaders.

Now why don't we all reduce the noise* in here and wait for the arrival
of news of Pedt and of our shiny new news group.  Who knows, maybe Myra
and Jobst will visit uk.rec.cycling.moderated?

*mea culpa.  
-- 
Jan
speaking virtually from
A Secret Pleasure Garden in East London

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:58:50 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

>HTML is not plain text. Therefore HTML is binary. 

Um, no.  It is not plain text but it is not binary either.  That
doesn't make it anything other than Wrong, of course.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On 2009-09-29, David Damerell  wrote:
>>HTML is not plain text. Therefore HTML is binary.
>
> Perhaps you should tell Mark Goodge that. His definition of "binary" is
> different, as you can see above (and of course both definitions are
> different to the normally used one).

Mark's definition looks the same as mine to me. It's also the
"normally used" one.

> You'd better let Charles Lindsey know, too. He's using yet another
> definition.

Yes, Charles was wrong about that. I agree with most of the rest of
what he said though.

> If "binary" is simply defined as "not plain text", why don't the
> Guidelines mandate "plain text", rather than "no binaries" with a secret
> definition of "binary"

With the normal definition of binary. And the Guidelines say that
because they've worked perfectly well with that wording for the last
12 years or so, so nobody has felt the need to change them.

> that one Committee member and Control don't even use?

That does not appear to be true.

On 2009-09-29, Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:58:50 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
><jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>HTML is not plain text. Therefore HTML is binary. 
>
> Um, no.

I disagree.

On 29 Sep 2009 16:01:32 GMT, Jan  Wysocki
 wrote:

>
>Now why don't we all reduce the noise* in here and wait for the arrival
>of news of Pedt and of our shiny new news group.

Perhaps you missed the posts in unnm. Pedt has been in hospital with
after collapsing due to a reaction to Tamiful.  He is out now and on
the road to recovery.
-- 
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Put thecat out to email

Quoting  Jan  Wysocki  <usenetATtarasowkaDOTorgENDSHERE>:
>On 2009-09-29, David Damerell  wrote:
>>If "binary" is simply defined as "not plain text", why don't the
>>Guidelines mandate "plain text", rather than "no binaries" with a secret
>>definition of "binary" that one Committee member and Control don't even
>>use?
>David, you are starting to sound like someone who _wants_ to send html
>to usenet.  Is that really your intention?

Absolutely not. I loathe it! That is one reason why I would like the
Guidelines to actually say "no HTML", and not rely on this fatuous claim
that "binaries" means "anything we don't like".

Note that the Committee's preferred wording (which is not mandatory, but
every proponent must accept it, or something) separates "binaries" and
"not plain text" into two distinct paragraphs. Whoever wrote _that_ didn't
think that "binaries" included HTML postings.
-- 
David Damerell  Kill the tomato!
Yesterday was First Leicesterday, September.
Today is First Brieday, September.
Tomorrow will be First Gouday, September.

Geoff Berrow  writes:
> One of the first things I remember when I started with Usenet is the
> endless bickering that used to go on about what I thought should be
> a standard form of words and format.  I wrote the RFDMaker which
> fixed the format end ended a good few arguments and I also had a
> hand in the no binaries clause.  It took some time but we finally
> had a form of words that, if used, would simply get passed on the
> nod.  I can't tell you how much this simplified things.
>
> At the time a ban on html was a no brainer.  On dial up with a
> 56k(theoretically) modem one simply did not want to waste the
> bandwidth with unnecessary bulk.
>
> So it became the convention that uk.* was a html free zone but we
> stopped short of putting it in the guidelines.  As Charles says 'they
> are regarded as exceedingly poor netiquette not only within uk.*, but
> within Usenet as a whole'.

You don't see HTML because many clients don't produce it by default
and because anyone who tried would get roundly shouted at, and this is
the norm in groups far beyond uk.*; its absence is nothing to do with
charters and guidelines.  (How many users do you think read the
charter of a group before starting to post to it?)

Compare top posting, which is also rare (though perhaps a bit more
common) despite charters AFAIK generally remaining silent on the
subject.

The line of thought that tries to extend the prohibition on binaries
into a prohibition on HTML is attacking an essentially nonexistent
threat (and with a weapon of somewhat dubious effectiveness), and it's
not unreasonable to wonder why proponents should be roped into someone
else's windmill-charging.

(Perhaps the likelihood of HTML everywhere seemed greater at the time;
but it's clearly not a remotely imminent danger today.)

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 2009-09-29, David Damerell  wrote:
> Note that the Committee's preferred wording (which is not mandatory, but
> every proponent must accept it, or something) separates "binaries" and
> "not plain text" into two distinct paragraphs. Whoever wrote _that_ didn't
> think that "binaries" included HTML postings.

You are making an obvious error of logic there.

On 29 Sep 2009 Geoff Berrow  wrote in
news:lda4c5d223a9jkb26u228ddcmhn986nrb5@4ax.com: 

> So it became the convention that uk.* was a html free zone but we
> stopped short of putting it in the guidelines.  As Charles says
> 'they are regarded as exceedingly poor netiquette not only within
> uk.*, but within Usenet as a whole'. 

My understanding is that HTML is not normally considered binary (look 
at the various spam cancelling FAQs). However there has never been a 
particularly tight definition of binary (arguments about PGP sigs 
either inline or in separate MIME types are the obvious).

Binaries were banned because they tend to be very large and cause 
problems for news servers, if we were to permit them then uk.*'s 
propogation would be badly affected and the guidelines are there to 
ensure that uk.* produces groups that are carried by news admins.

HTML is discouraged because posting in it is bad netiquette. Not 
something for the guidelines to ban but something that unn* is quite 
capable of ensuring is banned by charters. The committee can, and did, 
strongly advise the ban since it is the easiest way to get the group 
created. Had Ian insisted that the RFD went forward without the ban I 
don't think we could have blocked it. However I'm sure many would have 
voted against because:
a) We don't want them and
b) We don't want clauses in charters that are as open to argument as 
"No binaries"


-- 
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:44:28 +0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2009-09-29, Just zis Guy, you know? 
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:58:50 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
> ><jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> >>HTML is not plain text. Therefore HTML is binary. 
> >
> > Um, no.
> 
> I disagree.

But you're wrong.  HTML is source code for an interpreted language,
and just like other types of source code it is text written in ASCII
characters.  It's not plain text, but it's definitely not binary, which
is the sort of thing that results from compiling source code into an
executable.

In message <20090929193219.5e82bcee@bluemoon>, Rob Morley 
 writes
>On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:44:28 +0000 (UTC)
>Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-09-29, Just zis Guy, you know? 
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:58:50 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>> ><jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>HTML is not plain text. Therefore HTML is binary.
>> >
>> > Um, no.
>>
>> I disagree.
>
>But you're wrong.  HTML is source code for an interpreted language,
>and just like other types of source code it is text written in ASCII
>characters.  It's not plain text, but it's definitely not binary, which
>is the sort of thing that results from compiling source code into an
>executable.
>
Yup, I'm in agreement here. I can't see the logic in claiming that HTML 
is binary because it isn't plain text.
-- 
Chris French

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:32:19 +0100, Rob Morley  wrote:

> But you're wrong.  HTML is source code for an interpreted language,
> and just like other types of source code it is text written in ASCII
> characters.  It's not plain text, but it's definitely not binary, which
> is the sort of thing that results from compiling source code into an
> executable.

Where I come, from plain text is just a sub-set of binary and not something
different.

Back in the era of RFC977 I guess most people thought of plain text as
being 7 bit ASCII.  But now, with regional character sets and the need for
an 8 bit transport, text ain't nearly as plain as it once was.

IMO a rule to prohibit html should say exactly that.

Tony

In article <11f*k6iSs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
	David Damerell  wrote:
>                                             (which is not mandatory, but
> every proponent must accept it, or something)

Every time you repeat this nonsense, god gives a cyclist a puncture.

In this case, the proponent was told that they must

o) accept the standard wording
OR
o) accept that they are going to provoke a long, tedious, largely
pointless discussion about the proposed text that probably would
merely delay the eventual creation of the group in question.

Sadly, we have now have both.

FWIW:  I'm happy with the conventional words; I think it would be a bad
idea for them to be formally adopted into the guidlines as to do so would
remove some (possibly) useful flexibility.  It would be a real PITA if
one had to RFD a change the guidelines before one could propose
uk.comp.promotion-of-html-in-usenet. 

-- 
Please help Imogen May keep talking - www.imogenmay.com

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:47:37 <11f*k6iSs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> 
uk.net.news.config David Damerell 

>Quoting  Jan  Wysocki  <usenetATtarasowkaDOTorgENDSHERE>:
>>On 2009-09-29, David Damerell  wrote:
>>>If "binary" is simply defined as "not plain text", why don't the
>>>Guidelines mandate "plain text", rather than "no binaries" with a secret
>>>definition of "binary" that one Committee member and Control don't even
>>>use?
>>David, you are starting to sound like someone who _wants_ to send html
>>to usenet.  Is that really your intention?
>
>Absolutely not. I loathe it! That is one reason why I would like the
>Guidelines to actually say "no HTML", and not rely on this fatuous claim
>that "binaries" means "anything we don't like".
>
>Note that the Committee's preferred wording (which is not mandatory, but
>every proponent must accept it, or something) separates "binaries" and
>"not plain text" into two distinct paragraphs. Whoever wrote _that_ didn't
>think that "binaries" included HTML postings.

I read that it plain text.  What I saw was a lot of up and down writing.

Why are you so angry?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 2009-09-29, Rob Morley  wrote:
> But you're wrong.  HTML is source code for an interpreted language,
> and just like other types of source code it is text written in ASCII
> characters.  It's not plain text, but it's definitely not binary, which
> is the sort of thing that results from compiling source code into an
> executable.

Defining binary files as "the sort of things that result from
compiling source code" is so ludicrously narrow a definition as to be
obviously false.

At 20:43:51 on Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Jon Ribbens 
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in 
<slrnhc4scn.vtg.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net>:

>Defining binary files as "the sort of things that result from
>compiling source code" is so ludicrously narrow a definition as to be
>obviously false.

OK, since nobody's said it so far:

There are just 10 kinds of people in this newsgroup.  Those who 
understand binary, and those who don't.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:32:59 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>Back in the era of RFC977 I guess most people thought of plain text as
>being 7 bit ASCII.  But now, with regional character sets and the need for
>an 8 bit transport, text ain't nearly as plain as it once was.

Fair point.

>IMO a rule to prohibit html should say exactly that.

Just so.  How hard is that, exactly?
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On 2009-09-29, Geoff Berrow  wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2009 16:01:32 GMT, Jan  Wysocki
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Now why don't we all reduce the noise* in here and wait for the arrival
>>of news of Pedt and of our shiny new news group.
>
> Perhaps you missed the posts in unnm. Pedt has been in hospital with
> after collapsing due to a reaction to Tamiful.  He is out now and on
> the road to recovery.

Oh thank you so much, Geoff.  I have been wading through all the noise
in unnm purely to look for this news.  I'm only mildly surprised that
I missed it.  I wish you all the best Pedt.

-- 
Jan
speaking virtually from
A Secret Pleasure Garden in East London

On 29 Sep 2009 17:47:37 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>Quoting  Jan  Wysocki  <usenetATtarasowkaDOTorgENDSHERE>:
>>On 2009-09-29, David Damerell  wrote:
>>>If "binary" is simply defined as "not plain text", why don't the
>>>Guidelines mandate "plain text", rather than "no binaries" with a secret
>>>definition of "binary" that one Committee member and Control don't even
>>>use?
>>David, you are starting to sound like someone who _wants_ to send html
>>to usenet.  Is that really your intention?
>
>Absolutely not. I loathe it! That is one reason why I would like the
>Guidelines to actually say "no HTML", and not rely on this fatuous claim
>that "binaries" means "anything we don't like".
>
>Note that the Committee's preferred wording (which is not mandatory, but
>every proponent must accept it, or something) separates "binaries" and
>"not plain text" into two distinct paragraphs. Whoever wrote _that_ didn't
>think t

It would be much too easy to say:

------------------------------------------------------------
Binaries are not allowed.

Only  plain text postings are allowed.

For the avoidance of doubt - HTML are not considered to be plain text
- therefore they are not allowed.
------------------------------------------------------------


Much too easy -  job done.

PS This is a troll and may be disregarded because it is may be
sensible.





--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

At 00:03:43 on Wed, 30 Sep 2009, jms  wrote 
in :

>HTML are not considered to be plain text
>- therefore they are not allowed.

Why do you consider "HTML" to be a plural?  What would you consider the 
singular of it to be?
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

In MsgID<slrnhbn3sh.jto.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net> on Thu, 24 Sep 2009
10:25:55 -0500, in uk.net.news.config, 'Jon Ribbens' wrote:

>On 2009-09-24, David Damerell  wrote:
>> They've got eight votetakers;
>
>I'm not entirely sure that we do anymore. None of those listed on the
>website have officially resigned, as far as I'm aware, but a lot of
>them haven't been heard from on the UKVoting mailing list for a very
>long time. I think we might have 3 or 4, and that includes me and
>assumes Pedt re-appears at some point.

Wouldn't a snail-mail "how is everyone" scatter shot be possible? Just to
see who's still about, and whether they maintain an interest?

I assume you (plural) have a collection of addresses between you? 

Be a shame for a friendly cooperative to be dispersed by little more than
brownian motion ;-)


My brand of best wishes for Pedt can follow the rest.

Whatever's dragged him away - never mind thoughts of 'not too bad' - let's
hope the net result is positive in some way.


Was it Geoff who mentioned dropping in to Wrexham? (There's the usual
temporal gulf between my reading and this group's current traffic so I
haven't seen any news that may've been relayed)


Dave J.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:43:51 +0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2009-09-29, Rob Morley  wrote:
> > But you're wrong.  HTML is source code for an interpreted language,
> > and just like other types of source code it is text written in ASCII
> > characters.  It's not plain text, but it's definitely not binary,
> > which is the sort of thing that results from compiling source code
> > into an executable.
> 
> Defining binary files as "the sort of things that result from
> compiling source code" is so ludicrously narrow a definition as to be
> obviously false.

I gave it as an example, not a definition.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:32:59 +0100
"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:

> Where I come, from plain text is just a sub-set of binary and not
> something different.

I was wondering when someone would bring that up.  :-)  I think the
problem lies partly in the sloppy use of "binary" to mean
non-human-readable.  Even that is a misleading term - it's easy to read
any binary ("one zero zero one zero one one ..."), just not
particularly meaningful. And ASCII text files aren't really
"human-readable" anyway because the characters are recorded as binary
digits and mapped to more meaningful symbols by news clients, text
editors ....
> 
> Back in the era of RFC977 I guess most people thought of plain text as
> being 7 bit ASCII.  But now, with regional character sets and the
> need for an 8 bit transport, text ain't nearly as plain as it once
> was.

We'll have to build better Teletypes.
> 
> IMO a rule to prohibit html should say exactly that.
> 
Agreed.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 03:26:59 +0100, Dave J. 
wrote:

>Was it Geoff who mentioned dropping in to Wrexham?

Yes, and I did.

See: Message-ID: 
-- 
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Put thecat out to email

In message , jms
 writes

>It would be much too easy to say:

>------------------------------------------------------------
>Binaries are not allowed.

>Only  plain text postings are allowed.

>For the avoidance of doubt - HTML are not considered to be plain text
>- therefore they are not allowed.
>------------------------------------------------------------

I would only comment by re-ordering this list ...


Only plain text postings are allowed.

        For the avoidance of doubt - HTML is not considered plain text



        *should we say something about "attachments" / included files?

                After all, many who now post to usenet weren't born when
it first appeared ... and almost believe WWW is all there is ...
-- 
Rex M F Smith

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:13:04 +0100, Rex M F Smith
 wrote:

>I would only comment by re-ordering this list ...
>
>
>Only plain text postings are allowed.
>
>        For the avoidance of doubt - HTML is not considered plain text
>
>
>
>        *should we say something about "attachments" / included files?

And PGP/cryptographic signatures?

It's all flooding back, the endless arguments we had the first time.

As a reminder, here's what we came up with.

"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 authentication is important and should be as
short as possible.

Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly
formatted messages are prohibited. To see how to make some
common newsreaders comply with this, read 
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>."

IMV, it ain't broken.
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

Geoff Berrow  writes:

> As a reminder, here's what we came up with.

<snip boilerplate on binaries et al>
 
> IMV, it ain't broken.

I'm not sure why (since it seems to be semi-official that you should
include this or suffer endless bikeshedding in unnc) that block of
text isn't in the guidelines or similar - it's not a vast bit of extra
text, and would add a deal of clarity to the process.

Matthew

-- 
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org

On 30 Sep 2009 09:47:50 +0100, Matthew Vernon 
wrote:

>I'm not sure why (since it seems to be semi-official that you should
>include this or suffer endless bikeshedding in unnc) that block of
>text isn't in the guidelines or similar - it's not a vast bit of extra
>text, and would add a deal of clarity to the process.

Historically, for the same reason that a moderation policy is not part
of a charter.  We didn't know at the time how things would pan out wrt
HTML.  It may well have become the norm.  A generally accepted, but
not official form of words is easier to change.
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

In <slrnhc4scn.vtg.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> writes:

>On 2009-09-29, Rob Morley  wrote:
>> But you're wrong.  HTML is source code for an interpreted language,
>> and just like other types of source code it is text written in ASCII
>> characters.  It's not plain text, but it's definitely not binary, which
>> is the sort of thing that results from compiling source code into an
>> executable.

>Defining binary files as "the sort of things that result from
>compiling source code" is so ludicrously narrow a definition as to be
>obviously false.

On the contrary, that was the original meaning of the term. Back in the
days when you wrote programs in assembly language and then had them
converted to "binary" so they could be executed (well, there were days
before that when you wrote programs directly in binary by memorizing all
32 characters in the 5-bit paper tape code, and then punching it out
accordingly).

Later, when coded formats for sounds, pictures and compressed files
appeared, the term "binary" was extended to cover those. So now it means
esssentially any notation which requires special hardware and/or software
to render it in intelligible form.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:07:46 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>At 00:03:43 on Wed, 30 Sep 2009, jms  wrote 
>in :
>
>>HTML are not considered to be plain text
>>- therefore they are not allowed.
>
>Why do you consider "HTML" to be a plural?  What would you consider the 
>singular of it to be?


Well thank you for that very important point - it was very good of you
to point out the significance of that small error.  Would you like me
to check all of your posts for such things?  I will see if I have the
time.

Keep up the good work  - is this what being on the committee entails?
- it is obviously  well worth while your effort.

Feel free to change to:

"HTML messages are not considered to be plain text  therefore they are
not allowed."
--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On 2009-09-30, Charles Lindsey  wrote:
> Later, when coded formats for sounds, pictures and compressed files
> appeared, the term "binary" was extended to cover those. So now it means
> esssentially any notation which requires special hardware and/or software
> to render it in intelligible form.

So you agree that HTML is binary then?

Here's a good one: is a file containing nothing but unformatted
UTF-8 characters plain text or binary? How about UTF-16? ;-)

Quoting  Jon Ribbens  <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>:
>On 2009-09-29, David Damerell  wrote:
>>Note that the Committee's preferred wording (which is not mandatory, but
>>every proponent must accept it, or something) separates "binaries" and
>>"not plain text" into two distinct paragraphs. Whoever wrote _that_ didn't
>>think that "binaries" included HTML postings.
>You are making an obvious error of logic there.

No, I'm not; if you actually read the mandatory optional wording, you will
find it perfectly clear that whoever wrote it intended to forbid,
separately, "binaries" and "not plain text". That's quite obvious from the
wording itself.
-- 
David Damerell  Distortion Field!
Yesterday was First Brieday, September.
Today is First Gouday, September.
Tomorrow will be First Chedday, September - a public holiday.

Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
> wrote:
>>If "binary" is simply defined as "not plain text", why don't the
>>Guidelines mandate "plain text", rather than "no binaries" with a secret
>>definition of "binary" that one Committee member and Control don't even
>>use?
>Surely you were around at the time these rules were drawn up, why are
>you pretending you don't remember anything?

Because it's about a decade ago. I honestly couldn't tell you if I was on
the Committee yet or not, or what I said.

>So it became the convention that uk.* was a html free zone but we
>stopped short of putting it in the guidelines.

Perhaps you should let Jon Ribbens know that. He thinks HTML is included
in "binaries" and as such it is in the Guidelines.
-- 
David Damerell  Distortion Field!
Yesterday was First Brieday, September.
Today is First Gouday, September.
Tomorrow will be First Chedday, September - a public holiday.

Quoting  Jon Ribbens  <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>:
>On 2009-09-29, David Damerell  wrote:
>>>HTML is not plain text. Therefore HTML is binary.
>>Perhaps you should tell Mark Goodge that. His definition of "binary" is
>>different, as you can see above (and of course both definitions are
>>different to the normally used one).
>Mark's definition looks the same as mine to me. It's also the
>"normally used" one.

No, Mark's is based on Content-Type.

>>You'd better let Charles Lindsey know, too. He's using yet another
>>definition.
>Yes, Charles was wrong about that.

Oh, and Geoff Berrow too! He thinks the Guidelines do not explicitly
prohibit HTML, just binaries.

>>If "binary" is simply defined as "not plain text", why don't the
>>Guidelines mandate "plain text", rather than "no binaries" with a secret
>>definition of "binary"
>With the normal definition of binary.

This definition being "normal" even though, when we first started talking
about "binaries" on Usenet, no-one had ever seen or made an HTML posting?

> And the Guidelines say that
>because they've worked perfectly well with that wording for the last
>12 years or so, so nobody has felt the need to change them.

It's an interesting definition of "worked perfectly well" where the
Guidelines wording has to be replaced with another wording every time.
-- 
David Damerell  Distortion Field!
Yesterday was First Brieday, September.
Today is First Gouday, September.
Tomorrow will be First Chedday, September - a public holiday.

On 30 Sep 2009 17:42:01 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>>So it became the convention that uk.* was a html free zone but we
>>stopped short of putting it in the guidelines.
>
>Perhaps you should let Jon Ribbens know that. He thinks HTML is included
>in "binaries" and as such it is in the Guidelines.

Well I am curious as to why he thinks that.
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

On 2009-09-30, Geoff Berrow  wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2009 17:42:01 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
>
>>>So it became the convention that uk.* was a html free zone but we
>>>stopped short of putting it in the guidelines.
>>
>>Perhaps you should let Jon Ribbens know that. He thinks HTML is included
>>in "binaries" and as such it is in the Guidelines.
>
> Well I am curious as to why he thinks that.

For the obvious reason that HTML is not plain text, therefore it is
"binary". There is no third category that occurs to me, although as
I pointed out in my post earlier today, which category a particular
file belongs to may sometimes be a grey area.

As far as I can tell, the banning of binaries happened in the second
revision of the Guidelines; I am not sure where the standard charter
wording came from (or when indeed it became "standard").

You are making the same error David did by saying that, because the
standard charter wording mentions HTML explicitly, whoever wrote it
clearly believed that binaries does not include HTML. All that shows
is that whoever wrote it thought it would be better mentioning HTML
explicitly - and they were right.

*I* think that binaries includes HTML, but if I was writing the
wording today I might well explicitly state that HTML is banned, to
prevent tedious arguments like this one. The word certainly appears
not to be unambiguous enough to clearly convey any single meaning
without further context or clarification.

On 2009-09-30, David Damerell  wrote:
>>Mark's definition looks the same as mine to me. It's also the
>>"normally used" one.
>
> No, Mark's is based on Content-Type.

No, you just decided to put a rather strained interpretation on his
words to mean that.

> This definition being "normal" even though, when we first started talking
> about "binaries" on Usenet, no-one had ever seen or made an HTML posting?

I don't see what that has to do with it. Someone could invent a new
file format tomorrow that nobody's heard of today, and it would still
be banned by the phrase "binaries".

>> And the Guidelines say that
>>because they've worked perfectly well with that wording for the last
>>12 years or so, so nobody has felt the need to change them.
>
> It's an interesting definition of "worked perfectly well" where the
> Guidelines wording has to be replaced with another wording every time.

Nothing in the Guidelines is supposed to be copied verbatim into group
charters - so there is no such thing as "Guidelines wording" that has
to be "replaced ... every time".

"Geoff Berrow"  wrote ...

> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:13:04 +0100, Rex M F Smith
>  wrote:
>
>>I would only comment by re-ordering this list ...
>>
>>
>>Only plain text postings are allowed.
>>
>>        For the avoidance of doubt - HTML is not considered plain text
>>
>>
>>
>>        *should we say something about "attachments" / included files?
>
> And PGP/cryptographic signatures?
>
> It's all flooding back, the endless arguments we had the first time.
>
> As a reminder, here's what we came up with.
>
> "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 authentication is important and should be as
> short as possible.
>
> Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly
> formatted messages are prohibited. To see how to make some
> common newsreaders comply with this, read
> <http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>."
>
> IMV, it ain't broken.

But a shame it's not in the guidelines which say something different and 
isn't half as specific nor as clear.

I think the root problem is that the guidelines set out to state what's 
prohibited rather than what's allowed. With binaries prohibited it stands to 
reason anything which is not a binary is allowed - and that can arguable 
include HTML and anything else which is plaintext with tags or decoration - 
then comes the jumping through hoops to classify HTML as binary which isn't 
convincing to everyone.

I'd prefer something like ...

"Unless explicitly permitted, all posts must be made in a form which are 
readable as intended without showing formatting tags or decoration when 
rendered by a client application which treats all mesages as plaintext. 
HTML, RTF and binaries are not acceptable unless explictly permitted. PGP 
signatures are acceptable".

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:36:42 GMT
_  wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:18:33 GMT, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> 
> > On the contrary, that was the original meaning of the term. Back in the
> > days when you wrote programs in assembly language and then had them
> > converted to "binary" so they could be executed (well, there were days
> > before that when you wrote programs directly in binary by memorizing all
> > 32 characters in the 5-bit paper tape code, and then punching it out
> > accordingly).

Hmmmm,  30 characters IRRC, five holes was <NULL> and the 31st was
<SHIFT> to the alternate character-set.  My memory is mainly the Telex
tape codes, in computers I went straight from 80-column cards (yechhh
CDC's JCL!) to using an ASR-33.  Although even then the Primes and PDPs
were still booted from tape after a bit of key flicking and reaching to
the back of the CDC washing machine's casing to hit the overtemp reset
switch.

Could still be wrong though, many bytes have flowed through the bridge
since.


Mike
-- 
Mike Causer

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> writes:

> For the obvious reason that HTML is not plain text, therefore it is
> "binary". There is no third category that occurs to me,

"marked up text"

> although as I pointed out in my post earlier today, which category a
> particular file belongs to may sometimes be a grey area.

I think the distinguishing question is: can you make sense of it in a
text viewing program such as less or a traditional newsreader?

text/plain:   yes
text/html:    yes, but it might not be very pleasant
image/jpeg:   no

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 03:26:59 +0100, Dave J. 
wrote:

>Was it Geoff who mentioned dropping in to Wrexham?

Geoff has posted the mid - my fault, I only reposted his email to
unnm.