In article ,
Mark Goodge   wrote:
quoting his own earlier email:
>You're right, the guidelines do allow you, as proponent, to choose
>which groups the discussion should be crossposted to (other than in
>circumstances where this isn't practical).

Since I disagreed with Mark's reasons, I responded by asking that
followups should be set to include urc.  Control had some difficulty
accomodating my request as the software used by Control doesn't
support crossposting.  And, the 2nd RFD failed to have the followups
set appropriately.

However this appears to be another case where current practice (and
indeed advice from the Committee) disagrees with the the Guidelines.

(The CFV and the Results also lacked the crosspost but I hadn't
appreciated how little communication there is between the Committee
and Ukvoting.  If I had, I would have specifically asked the votetaker
to set followups too.)

>You may well want to interpret that as "obstructionism", but I think
>it's fairly clear from my text that this isn't what was intended.

I agree that you didn't obstruct the crossposting.  You advised
against, in an entirely proper manner (even though I disagree entirely
with your argument).

However there are still things which could have been improved here.
Control initially refused to crosspost my RFD, until the Committee
clarified matters.  Furthermore, Control's first attempt to post the
2nd RFD vanished, and the repost was not crossposted.

Another thing that could do with some attention is the fact that
Control edited my 1st RFD so that what was posted under my From: line
was not identical to what I submitted.  If Control is going to
mechanically construct RFD postings and reassemble them via scripts,
they should be posted under Control's name.

-- 
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 ,
Pedt   wrote:
>I presume you are meaning crossposts in the Follow-Up: header as the CFV 
>and result were crossposted to unna, unnc and urc?

Yes, I do mean the Followup-To.

>I won't comment on the result posting but a CFV has a Reply-To: set to 
>the @request.ukvoting.org.uk for the vote and Follow-Up: to Poster. This 
>makes it straightforward for potential voters to request a ballot paper.

Ah, I didn't spot that.  I do seem to remember seeing some followups
to the CFV, but I could be wrong.

>It is technically impossible to set a follow up to Poster and to 
>newsgroups and would, even if possible, be undesirable.

Yes.

-- 
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 19 Oct 2009 11:04:41 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

<snip>


>Another thing that could do with some attention is the fact that
>Control edited my 1st RFD so that what was posted under my From: line
>was not identical to what I submitted.  If Control is going to
>mechanically construct RFD postings and reassemble them via scripts,
>they should be posted under Control's name.


A bit like you saying on your personal URCM  web page:

This is a copy of the official charter published at
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycling.moderated.html#uk.rec.cycling.moderated


When of course it isn't a copy at all.


--  

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

Ian Jackson  wrote in
news:jIs*nSXTs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk: 

> In article ,
> Pedt   wrote:
>>I presume you are meaning crossposts in the Follow-Up: header as
>>the CFV and result were crossposted to unna, unnc and urc?
> 
> Yes, I do mean the Followup-To.
> 
>>I won't comment on the result posting but a CFV has a Reply-To:
>>set to the @request.ukvoting.org.uk for the vote and Follow-Up: to
>>Poster. This makes it straightforward for potential voters to
>>request a ballot paper. 
> 
> Ah, I didn't spot that.  I do seem to remember seeing some
> followups to the CFV, but I could be wrong.
 
It is possible to send followups even where they are not invited, or 
even, perhaps, welcome.



-- 
Percy Picacity