In article <hcpovp$24b$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
Tony   wrote:
>Ian Jackson  wrote:
>> An example: 
>> [ Control and Committee rejecting 1st draft of 1st RFD ]
><snip>
>
>You have said this before, over and over.  Stating it again won't change
>anyone's mind.  Either people believe you, or they don't. 

I send my first draft of the 1st RFD to Control on Wednesday the 20th
of May at 14:37.

Control didn't post it.  Instead Control wrote to me at 00:19 that night:

   Is this an actual RFD or a sort of "pre-RFD"?  [...]

   [...]   if it's an actual RFD then it needs to be a bit
   tighter and to have some other fields  [...]

I replied at 13:58 on Thursday, CC the Committee, saying it was a real
RFD and explaining that I would like it posted.  However Control had
by then left for a long weekend (saying they would be back on the
Tuesday the 26th).  So at that point I justifiably expected that my
RFD would be posted as-is on Control's return on Tuesday.

However a member of the Committee replied on Friday the 21st:

   A first RFD should be sufficiently well-formed to be able to be
   fast-tracked or voted on without further amendments if appropriate;
   a proposal that will inevitably require a further RFD because it
   doesn't contain all the necessary information is not, IMO, ready to
   be published as an RFD.

This is directly contrary to the explicit text of the Guidelines.

Based on that, I decided (just like in every other case where Control
and the Committee unjustifiably obstructed) that rather than argue, I
would do it the Committee's way.

Hence the pre-RFD on the 26th.

-- 
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 03 Nov 2009 18:35:44 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>However a member of the Committee replied on Friday the 21st:
>
>   A first RFD should be sufficiently well-formed to be able to be
>   fast-tracked or voted on without further amendments if appropriate;
>   a proposal that will inevitably require a further RFD because it
>   doesn't contain all the necessary information is not, IMO, ready to
>   be published as an RFD.

>This is directly contrary to the explicit text of the Guidelines.

No it isn't. The very next paragraph, (from Mark, who I hope will
forgive me quoting him) which you conveniently snipped says:

>  Having said that, I haven't seen this one, so I have no idea whether 
>  it's in an RFDable state or not yet. If the only issue is the fact that 
>  the moderators aren't yet known, that's not a problem - that's not 
>  core to the proposal itself, and can be addressed later if required.

So not only had the committee NOT seen the RFD (and hence could not
block it) but you were explicitly told by a member of the committee
that the list of moderators was NOT a problem.






-- 
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

Enough is enough :(

As you are a candidate for the committee, I have been
(uncharacteristically) giving you the benefit of the doubt in
hopes that something someone said would finally cause clue to be
absorbed. However you now display the classic symptoms of
incurability.


http://www.fuckwit.info/

http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/fwit-faq.html


Failure to recognise yourself should be interpreted as a
successful diagnosis. 

Not that I expect you to read either of those; doing so would be
incompatible with true fuckwittedness.

Anyone tempted to continue to try to further apply reason to
debate with the Jackboot is advised to consult those pages to
refresh their memories as to what we are actually dealing with
here.

-- 
DG

In  on Tue, 03 Nov
2009 19:35:01 +0000, Dick Gaughan  wrote:

>
>Enough is enough :(
>


In case of doubt, my previous post was in response to

Message-ID: <mYD*a4bVs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>

-- 
DG

On 03 Nov 2009 18:35:44 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>I send my first draft of the 1st RFD to Control on Wednesday the 20th
>of May at 14:37.
>
>Control didn't post it.  Instead Control wrote to me at 00:19 that night:
>
>   Is this an actual RFD or a sort of "pre-RFD"?  [...]
>
>   [...]   if it's an actual RFD then it needs to be a bit
>   tighter and to have some other fields  [...]
>
>I replied at 13:58 on Thursday, CC the Committee, saying it was a real
>RFD and explaining that I would like it posted.  However Control had
>by then left for a long weekend (saying they would be back on the
>Tuesday the 26th).  So at that point I justifiably expected that my
>RFD would be posted as-is on Control's return on Tuesday.
>
>However a member of the Committee replied on Friday the 21st:
>
>   A first RFD should be sufficiently well-formed to be able to be
>   fast-tracked or voted on without further amendments if appropriate;
>   a proposal that will inevitably require a further RFD because it
>   doesn't contain all the necessary information is not, IMO, ready to
>   be published as an RFD.

FFS, Ian, look up what "IMO" means. And then go back and read that
email again, because you seem to have missed the paragraph immediately
after it:

  Having said that, I haven't seen this one, so I have no idea whether
  it's in an RFDable state or not yet. If the only issue is the
  fact that the moderators aren't yet known, that's not a problem -
  that's not core to the proposal itself, and can be addressed later
  if required.

So, you can see that, far from blocking your first draft on the
grounds that it didn't contain the list of moderators, my comment
explicitly stated that this wasn't necessary.

Now, unless you're going to accuse me of fabricating that second
paragraph, above (and, if you do, there are plenty of other people
who've seen it as well), you cannot persist in this charade of
claiming that my comments were in any way an attempt to block your RFD
because it didn't have a list of moderators. I would, therefore,
appreciate it if you could at least manage to retract that accusation
and apologise to me and the the electorate for misrepresenting me in
that way.

>This is directly contrary to the explicit text of the Guidelines.
>
>Based on that, I decided (just like in every other case where Control
>and the Committee unjustifiably obstructed) that rather than argue, I
>would do it the Committee's way.

At that point, the committee hadn't even seen your first draft. *You*
made the choice to go away and come up with a better proposal. We
never even had the chance to block it.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:36:39 +0000, Dick Gaughan
 wrote:

>In case of doubt

As if anyone could!

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:00:54 +0000, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>Now, unless you're going to accuse me of fabricating that second
>paragraph, above (and, if you do, there are plenty of other people
>who've seen it as well),

I already posted my copy Mark, though I wouldn't be surprised if they
didn't think it was a conspiracy

> you cannot persist in this charade of
>claiming that my comments were in any way an attempt to block your RFD
>because it didn't have a list of moderators. I would, therefore,
>appreciate it if you could at least manage to retract that accusation
>and apologise to me and the the electorate for misrepresenting me in
>that way.

He has misrepresented the entire committee and misled a whole lot of
people.

Despicable, as Judith would say.
-- 
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 article ,
Mark Goodge   wrote:
>On 03 Nov 2009 18:35:44 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>>However a member of the Committee replied on Friday the 21st:
>>
>>   A first RFD should be sufficiently well-formed to be able to be
>>   fast-tracked or voted on without further amendments if appropriate;
>>   a proposal that will inevitably require a further RFD because it
>>   doesn't contain all the necessary information is not, IMO, ready to
>>   be published as an RFD.
>
>FFS, Ian, look up what "IMO" means. And then go back and read that
>email again, because you seem to have missed the paragraph immediately
>after it:

Control had rejected my RFD in part because I wrote this:

  We will discuss this proposal for between 10 and 30 days and then, if
  rough consensus still exists, put forward a more concrete proposal
  with a specific set of moderators.

  Discussion should be crossposted to uk.rec.cycling and
  uk.net.news.config.

  Everything in the proposal is still up for discussion, so if you have
  different views please do put your oar in.

Control wrote:

   If it's a draft then you don't need to go through Control, you can
   post it to unnc and urc yourself for discussion

>  Having said that, I haven't seen this one, so I have no idea whether
>  it's in an RFDable state or not yet. If the only issue is the
>  fact that the moderators aren't yet known, that's not a problem -
>  that's not core to the proposal itself, and can be addressed later
>  if required.
>
>So, you can see that, far from blocking your first draft on the
>grounds that it didn't contain the list of moderators, my comment
>explicitly stated that this wasn't necessary.

I think this paragraph contradicts the first one.  How can the list of
moderators not be `necessary information' ?  How can a proposal
without a list of moderators not inevitably require a 2nd RFD ?

I was intending that my proposal would definitely go to a 2nd RFD.
Under the circumstances - that you were unhappy with a 1st RFD which
necessarily contemplates a 2nd - it seemed to me that you were saying
it was essential to get a firmer proposal ready before going to the
formal stage.

I think this is a perversion of the notion that an RFD is a request
for discussion.  One may sensibly request a discussion to help with
putting together a firm proposal.

>At that point, the committee hadn't even seen your first draft. *You*
>made the choice to go away and come up with a better proposal. We
>never even had the chance to block it.

Control blocked it and the Committee collectively failed to overturn
that decision, as was your collective responsibility to do.

As in each case where I disagreed with the Committee's behaviour, I
decided to capitulate and follow the route which seemed to me to be
likely to get things done fastest.

So it is true that rather than arguing further with the Committee,
waiting for them to make up their mind, and so forth, I decided to do
as I felt I had been told to do and post a request for discussion
rather than a Request For Discussion.

I'm sorry if that's not what you meant and I did not intend to accuse
anyone of dishonesty.  This kind of thing just goes to show why people
who hold positions of authority should recognise the extra
responsibility that comes with that authority, and be careful to be
clear.

-- 
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
I'm standing for the UK Usenet committee; see uk.net.news.announce for info.

Ian Jackson  said:

> In article ,
> Mark Goodge   wrote:
>> On 03 Nov 2009 18:35:44 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>> However a member of the Committee replied on Friday the 21st:
>>>
>>>   A first RFD should be sufficiently well-formed to be able to be
>>>   fast-tracked or voted on without further amendments if
>>>   appropriate; a proposal that will inevitably require a further
>>>   RFD because it doesn't contain all the necessary information is
>>>   not, IMO, ready to be published as an RFD.
>>
>> FFS, Ian, look up what "IMO" means. And then go back and read that
>> email again, because you seem to have missed the paragraph
>> immediately after it:
>
> Control had rejected my RFD in part because I wrote this:
>
>  We will discuss this proposal for between 10 and 30 days and then, if
>  rough consensus still exists, put forward a more concrete proposal
>  with a specific set of moderators.
>
>  Discussion should be crossposted to uk.rec.cycling and
>  uk.net.news.config.
>
>  Everything in the proposal is still up for discussion, so if you have
>  different views please do put your oar in.
>
> Control wrote:
>
>   If it's a draft then you don't need to go through Control, you can
>   post it to unnc and urc yourself for discussion

That is not a rejection.  It's a comment that you don't need to RFD until 
you are ready.


>
>>  Having said that, I haven't seen this one, so I have no idea whether
>>  it's in an RFDable state or not yet. If the only issue is the
>>  fact that the moderators aren't yet known, that's not a problem -
>>  that's not core to the proposal itself, and can be addressed later
>>  if required.
>>
>> So, you can see that, far from blocking your first draft on the
>> grounds that it didn't contain the list of moderators, my comment
>> explicitly stated that this wasn't necessary.
>
> I think this paragraph contradicts the first one.  How can the list of
> moderators not be `necessary information' ?  How can a proposal
> without a list of moderators not inevitably require a 2nd RFD ?
>
> I was intending that my proposal would definitely go to a 2nd RFD.
> Under the circumstances - that you were unhappy with a 1st RFD which
> necessarily contemplates a 2nd - it seemed to me that you were saying
> it was essential to get a firmer proposal ready before going to the
> formal stage.
>
> I think this is a perversion of the notion that an RFD is a request
> for discussion.  One may sensibly request a discussion to help with
> putting together a firm proposal.
>
>> At that point, the committee hadn't even seen your first draft. *You*
>> made the choice to go away and come up with a better proposal. We
>> never even had the chance to block it.
>
> Control blocked it and the Committee collectively failed to overturn
> that decision, as was your collective responsibility to do.

It wasn't blocked.  It was just a discussion on the way to proceed.

Even if it was, as we knew nothing about your "draft" we weren't in a 
position to "overturn" anything,.

Now, you may see it as the responsibility of the Committtee to make rulings 
and judgements on things about which they know nothing, in that case I don't 
doubt you will make an admirable member should you get voted on, but me, I 
prefer to wait and learn.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<.

On 10 Nov 2009 14:43:28 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson wrote:

> Control had rejected my RFD in part because I wrote this:
> 
>   We will discuss this proposal for between 10 and 30 days and then, if
>   rough consensus still exists, put forward a more concrete proposal
>   with a specific set of moderators.
> 
>   Discussion should be crossposted to uk.rec.cycling and
>   uk.net.news.config.
> 
>   Everything in the proposal is still up for discussion, so if you have
>   different views please do put your oar in.
> 
> Control wrote:
> 
>    If it's a draft then you don't need to go through Control, you can
>    post it to unnc and urc yourself for discussion

Are you living is discworld or some other parallel universe? Seems
perfectly fair and obvious to me. Your own words state: Everything in the
proposal is still up for discussion.

Whether you like it or not, your original submission did not form the basis
of a properly constituted and coherent RFD for the formation of a group.
 
>>  Having said that, I haven't seen this one, so I have no idea whether
>>  it's in an RFDable state or not yet. If the only issue is the
>>  fact that the moderators aren't yet known, that's not a problem -
>>  that's not core to the proposal itself, and can be addressed later
>>  if required.
>>
>>So, you can see that, far from blocking your first draft on the
>>grounds that it didn't contain the list of moderators, my comment
>>explicitly stated that this wasn't necessary.
> 
> I think this paragraph contradicts the first one.  

Not by my reckoning. 

http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html which has been extant in its
presentr form since 2004 has very clear requirements for the submission of
RFDs. That you chose to go off in a completely different direction and then
whinge and moan because Control didn't want to play your game is your
problem, your fault. Nobody else's.

> How can the list of
> moderators not be `necessary information' ?  How can a proposal
> without a list of moderators not inevitably require a 2nd RFD ?

You've answered your own question, your first submission to Control did not
meet the guidelines for the submission of RFDs. You *were* in the wrong.
Not Control, not the Committee, you! If you had taken the time to submit a
properly constituted RFD, Control I am sure, would have actioned it
appropriately.





-- 
The Wanderer

It pays to buy things you dislike. They last much longer.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:51:51 +0000, The Wanderer
 wrote:

>> Control wrote:
>> 
>>    If it's a draft then you don't need to go through Control, you can
>>    post it to unnc and urc yourself for discussion
>
>Are you living is discworld or some other parallel universe? Seems
>perfectly fair and obvious to me. Your own words state: Everything in the
>proposal is still up for discussion.
>
>Whether you like it or not, your original submission did not form the basis
>of a properly constituted and coherent RFD for the formation of a group.

Well what Ian has said since, that he didn't say before, was that he
was scared of someone putting in a spoiler RFD and stealing his
thunder.  He wanted to 'get one in' in case he was gazzumped.

Now despite all the criticism he has made of the committee, we are a
very fair minded bunch and I've no doubt that we would support the
first person to start a discussion. 



-- 
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 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:03:53 +0000, Geoff Berrow wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:51:51 +0000, The Wanderer
>  wrote:
> 
>>> Control wrote:
>>> 
>>>    If it's a draft then you don't need to go through Control, you can
>>>    post it to unnc and urc yourself for discussion
>>
>>Are you living is discworld or some other parallel universe? Seems
>>perfectly fair and obvious to me. Your own words state: Everything in the
>>proposal is still up for discussion.
>>
>>Whether you like it or not, your original submission did not form the basis
>>of a properly constituted and coherent RFD for the formation of a group.
> 
> Well what Ian has said since, that he didn't say before, was that he
> was scared of someone putting in a spoiler RFD and stealing his
> thunder.  He wanted to 'get one in' in case he was gazzumped.

I don't see how a 'spoiler' RFD per se could suceed. 

What it could have meant was that urcm might have been established in a
manner other than at present. I will leave readers to ponder on this
outcome. And draw their own conclusions about why this might not have been
attractive to the present group of moderators. 

Hmm, I suppose there's no reason why another RFD shouldn't be raised for
urc(2)m, using the ulm model.......

:-) 


-- 
The Wanderer

I may be omniscient, but don't expect me to know everything.

In uk.net.news.management on Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:16:57 -0000, "kat"
 wrote:

}Now, you may see it as the responsibility of the Committtee to make rulings 
}and judgements on things about which they know nothing, in that case I don't 
}doubt you will make an admirable member should you get voted on, but me, I 
}prefer to wait and learn.

Use the crystal balls from the satnav system of the black helicopter.

{R}

{R}  said:

> In uk.net.news.management on Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:16:57 -0000, "kat"
>  wrote:
>
> }Now, you may see it as the responsibility of the Committtee to make
> rulings }and judgements on things about which they know nothing, in
> that case I don't }doubt you will make an admirable member should you
> get voted on, but me, I }prefer to wait and learn.
>
> Use the crystal balls from the satnav system of the black helicopter.
>
> {R}

If we take them out someone will have to map read instead.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On 10 Nov 2009 14:43:28 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>In article ,
>Mark Goodge   wrote:
>>On 03 Nov 2009 18:35:44 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson put finger to
>>keyboard and typed:
>>>However a member of the Committee replied on Friday the 21st:
>>>
>>>   A first RFD should be sufficiently well-formed to be able to be
>>>   fast-tracked or voted on without further amendments if appropriate;
>>>   a proposal that will inevitably require a further RFD because it
>>>   doesn't contain all the necessary information is not, IMO, ready to
>>>   be published as an RFD.
>>
>>FFS, Ian, look up what "IMO" means. And then go back and read that
>>email again, because you seem to have missed the paragraph immediately
>>after it:
>
>Control had rejected my RFD in part because I wrote this:
>
>  We will discuss this proposal for between 10 and 30 days and then, if
>  rough consensus still exists, put forward a more concrete proposal
>  with a specific set of moderators.
>
>  Discussion should be crossposted to uk.rec.cycling and
>  uk.net.news.config.
>
>  Everything in the proposal is still up for discussion, so if you have
>  different views please do put your oar in.
>
>Control wrote:
>
>   If it's a draft then you don't need to go through Control, you can
>   post it to unnc and urc yourself for discussion

As kat has said, that's not a rejection. It's simply stating the
bleedin' obvious - if it's a draft, then it's not yet an RFD and
doesn't need to go through Control.

>>  Having said that, I haven't seen this one, so I have no idea whether
>>  it's in an RFDable state or not yet. If the only issue is the
>>  fact that the moderators aren't yet known, that's not a problem -
>>  that's not core to the proposal itself, and can be addressed later
>>  if required.
>>
>>So, you can see that, far from blocking your first draft on the
>>grounds that it didn't contain the list of moderators, my comment
>>explicitly stated that this wasn't necessary.
>
>I think this paragraph contradicts the first one.  How can the list of
>moderators not be `necessary information' ?  How can a proposal
>without a list of moderators not inevitably require a 2nd RFD ?

Because moderators can be appointed after the group is created. There
are plenty of precedents for that.

>>At that point, the committee hadn't even seen your first draft. *You*
>>made the choice to go away and come up with a better proposal. We
>>never even had the chance to block it.
>
>Control blocked it and the Committee collectively failed to overturn
>that decision, as was your collective responsibility to do.

How the fuck could we do so when we didn't even see the document? We
have repeatedly stated that we did not block it. If you are continuing
to assert that we are, then that can only be because you believe us
all to be liars. Is that what you believe?

>As in each case where I disagreed with the Committee's behaviour, I
>decided to capitulate and follow the route which seemed to me to be
>likely to get things done fastest.

Why describe it as "capitulate"? Why use such unnecessarily combative
language? What's wrong with taking advice in the spirit in which it's
given? It's not, as you seem to perceive it, a character flaw to
compromise.

>So it is true that rather than arguing further with the Committee,
>waiting for them to make up their mind, and so forth, I decided to do
>as I felt I had been told to do and post a request for discussion
>rather than a Request For Discussion.
>
>I'm sorry if that's not what you meant and I did not intend to accuse
>anyone of dishonesty.  This kind of thing just goes to show why people
>who hold positions of authority should recognise the extra
>responsibility that comes with that authority, and be careful to be
>clear.

One simple question: Do you accept, without reservation, that the
committee did not make any attempt to block your first RFD, and that
any perception on yur part that we did so was entirely due to your
misunderstanding?

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

In article ,
 Mark Goodge  wrote:

> 
> One simple question: Do you accept, without reservation, that the
> committee did not make any attempt to block your first RFD, and that
> any perception on yur part that we did so was entirely due to your
> misunderstanding?

<fx>tumbleweed blowing through a ghost town... </fx>

-- 
Sara

Cuddler of rats, cats and husband

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:57:38 +0000, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>One simple question: Do you accept, without reservation, that the
>committee did not make any attempt to block your first RFD, and that
>any perception on yur part that we did so was entirely due to your
>misunderstanding?

Lack of response from "The Twat Jackson"[GPL] noted.