3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr

In news.groups Steve Young bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet wrote:
wrote in message
...
In news.groups Alan Browne wrote:
Steve Young wrote:
Will this be addressing new charters for the 2 original groups (rpd &
rpe35mm) which are impacted by the new group(s)?

no.

I highly doubt there is a way to address those charters with the
existing process that won't be majorly disruptive on those groups
(e.g. renaming the existing groups which is actually performed
by removing the old group and creating a new one with the new name
- all postings in the existing queue are removed and the "renamed"
group begins anew). It would be unfair to demand proponents even
consider the idea unless the readers of the affected groups are
willing to accept such disruptions.

I don't understand why anything physically needs to be done to the groups.
Why not just ride 2 new charters through with this new one?

Because the process has no provisions for such an action. The process
is strictly for the actions the guidelines stipulate:

"Create a new newsgroup, remove an existing newsgroup (by subsuming
it into an existing group), change the moderation status of an
existing newsgroup, or rename a newsgroup."

That's it. No provisions for only changing the charter of an existing
group. The NAN moderators, UVVs and news.groups regulars currently
are not in the business of dealing with the functioning of a newsgroup
at such an internal level.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

wrote in message
...
In news.groups Steve Young bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet wrote:
wrote in message
...
In news.groups Alan Browne wrote:
Steve Young wrote:
Will this be addressing new charters for the 2 original groups (rpd
& rpe35mm) which are impacted by the new group(s)?

no.

I highly doubt there is a way to address those charters with the
existing process that won't be majorly disruptive on those groups
(e.g. renaming the existing groups which is actually performed
by removing the old group and creating a new one with the new name
- all postings in the existing queue are removed and the "renamed"
group begins anew). It would be unfair to demand proponents even
consider the idea unless the readers of the affected groups are
willing to accept such disruptions.

I don't understand why anything physically needs to be done to the
groups. Why not just ride 2 new charters through with this new one?

Because the process has no provisions for such an action. The process
is strictly for the actions the guidelines stipulate:

"Create a new newsgroup, remove an existing newsgroup (by subsuming
it into an existing group), change the moderation status of an
existing newsgroup, or rename a newsgroup."

That's it. No provisions for only changing the charter of an existing
group. The NAN moderators, UVVs and news.groups regulars currently
are not in the business of dealing with the functioning of a newsgroup
at such an internal level.

This was discussed, when I ask the question, right here in news.groups:

excerpted
Message-ID:

"Rob Kelk"
This group already exists - it's called news.groups. Why duplicate it?

Steve Young wrote:
Will news.groups discuss changes to be made to existing rec.photo
charters and then, can we follow this up with a ratification vote?

"Rob Kelk" wrote:
Certainly. I recall it being done before, for other groups.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The reply was never challenged, restated or retracted.

IMO, to correctly fit the new group(s) into the pool, the rpd & rpe35mm
charters need updated/amended in the process.

Steve Young

--
One thing you can guarantee, though: if you don't try, you'll never
have to find out it might have succeeded, and you can be very smug
about your species' extinction as it is happening: "I _told_ them
there was no way to bring peace to this planet!"
- xanthian

wrote in message
...
In news.groups Steve Young bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet wrote:
wrote in message
...
In news.groups Alan Browne wrote:
Steve Young wrote:
Will this be addressing new charters for the 2 original groups (rpd
& rpe35mm) which are impacted by the new group(s)?

no.

I highly doubt there is a way to address those charters with the
existing process that won't be majorly disruptive on those groups
(e.g. renaming the existing groups which is actually performed
by removing the old group and creating a new one with the new name
- all postings in the existing queue are removed and the "renamed"
group begins anew). It would be unfair to demand proponents even
consider the idea unless the readers of the affected groups are
willing to accept such disruptions.

I don't understand why anything physically needs to be done to the
groups. Why not just ride 2 new charters through with this new one?

Because the process has no provisions for such an action. The process
is strictly for the actions the guidelines stipulate:

"Create a new newsgroup, remove an existing newsgroup (by subsuming
it into an existing group), change the moderation status of an
existing newsgroup, or rename a newsgroup."

That's it. No provisions for only changing the charter of an existing
group. The NAN moderators, UVVs and news.groups regulars currently
are not in the business of dealing with the functioning of a newsgroup
at such an internal level.

This was discussed, when I ask the question, right here in news.groups:

excerpted
Message-ID:

"Rob Kelk"
This group already exists - it's called news.groups. Why duplicate it?

Steve Young wrote:
Will news.groups discuss changes to be made to existing rec.photo
charters and then, can we follow this up with a ratification vote?

"Rob Kelk" wrote:
Certainly. I recall it being done before, for other groups.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The reply was never challenged, restated or retracted.

IMO, to correctly fit the new group(s) into the pool, the rpd & rpe35mm
charters need updated/amended in the process.

Steve Young

--
One thing you can guarantee, though: if you don't try, you'll never
have to find out it might have succeeded, and you can be very smug
about your species' extinction as it is happening: "I _told_ them
there was no way to bring peace to this planet!"
- xanthian

Kibo informs me that "Steve Young" bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet stated
that:

IMO, to correctly fit the new group(s) into the pool, the rpd & rpe35mm
charters need updated/amended in the process.

Well then, you'd better start working on an RFD, hadn't you?

Don't forget to include clauses outlawing the Shoot-In, & permitting
auction ads.
I suspect that you'll very quickly find out just how popular your views
are in both groups.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Kibo informs me that "Steve Young" bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet stated
that:

IMO, to correctly fit the new group(s) into the pool, the rpd & rpe35mm
charters need updated/amended in the process.

Well then, you'd better start working on an RFD, hadn't you?

Don't forget to include clauses outlawing the Shoot-In, & permitting
auction ads.
I suspect that you'll very quickly find out just how popular your views
are in both groups.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

In news.groups, Steve Young bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet writes:

IMO, to correctly fit the new group(s) into the pool, the rpd & rpe35mm
charters need updated/amended in the process.

You can do what everyone else does and just declare them amended. If it
makes you feel better, you can explain how the new groups fit in with the
old ones in their charters so that you can say that people voted on it.

We will not approve an RFD or CFV that lists charter amendments as
separate voting items. Sorry. See my previous note in news.groups about
how I'm uninterested personally in supporting or working on a charter
archive and update system. If someone else wants to run such a system,
they're certainly welcome to do so, but currently group charters are not
something that is formally maintained by the newsgroup creation system.

--
Russ Allbery ) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/

In news.groups, Steve Young bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet writes:

IMO, to correctly fit the new group(s) into the pool, the rpd & rpe35mm
charters need updated/amended in the process.

You can do what everyone else does and just declare them amended. If it
makes you feel better, you can explain how the new groups fit in with the
old ones in their charters so that you can say that people voted on it.

We will not approve an RFD or CFV that lists charter amendments as
separate voting items. Sorry. See my previous note in news.groups about
how I'm uninterested personally in supporting or working on a charter
archive and update system. If someone else wants to run such a system,
they're certainly welcome to do so, but currently group charters are not
something that is formally maintained by the newsgroup creation system.

--
Russ Allbery ) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/

"Lionel" asked Kibo if he would write:

Kibo couldn't get straight what "Steve Young" bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet
had stated:

IMO, to correctly fit the new group(s) into the pool, the rpd & rpe35mm
charters need updated/amended in the process.

Well then, you'd better start working on an RFD, hadn't you?

Tell me how you would do that smarty pants, if not by amending the
charter? Ask the group if they want to be renamed
rec.photo.digital.misc.misc? That's just plain ludicrous Lionel.

Don't forget to include clauses outlawing the Shoot-In, & permitting
auction ads.

Why do you insist on always getting it backwards?
I've always proposed exactly the opposite of what you just now stated.
(Lest of course your winky eye takes it back). I'm just not foolish enough
to pretend the charter says anything different than what it says.

I suspect that you'll very quickly find out just how popular your views
are in both groups.

What?, if I again called for language that would put the SI on topic, as I
have numerous times, or once again called for language that prohibits
auction pointers, if that's what the group desires? Maybe the
good news is, with its elitist founding, stealing the cream, the new
group will surely be a troll magnet and possibly the other groups will
benefit from this.

You should read me Lionel, if you're going to comment on my
posts. It would save you the embarrassment of appearing as though you
don't know what you're talking about.

x

"Lionel" asked Kibo if he would write:

Kibo couldn't get straight what "Steve Young" bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet
had stated:

IMO, to correctly fit the new group(s) into the pool, the rpd & rpe35mm
charters need updated/amended in the process.

Well then, you'd better start working on an RFD, hadn't you?

Tell me how you would do that smarty pants, if not by amending the
charter? Ask the group if they want to be renamed
rec.photo.digital.misc.misc? That's just plain ludicrous Lionel.

Don't forget to include clauses outlawing the Shoot-In, & permitting
auction ads.

Why do you insist on always getting it backwards?
I've always proposed exactly the opposite of what you just now stated.
(Lest of course your winky eye takes it back). I'm just not foolish enough
to pretend the charter says anything different than what it says.

I suspect that you'll very quickly find out just how popular your views
are in both groups.

What?, if I again called for language that would put the SI on topic, as I
have numerous times, or once again called for language that prohibits
auction pointers, if that's what the group desires? Maybe the
good news is, with its elitist founding, stealing the cream, the new
group will surely be a troll magnet and possibly the other groups will
benefit from this.

You should read me Lionel, if you're going to comment on my
posts. It would save you the embarrassment of appearing as though you
don't know what you're talking about.

x

"Steve Young" bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet wrote in message
...
"Alan Browne" wrote

Steve Young wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote

Steve Young wrote:

Will this be addressing new charters for the 2 original groups (rpd
& rpe35mm) which are impacted by the new group(s)?

no.

why? you have no problem pillaging the groups? no new charters as
your gratitude?

You're the one who wants this done, you lead it.

It takes unity to make it work.
I now view your new group as the elitist power grab others have
called you on. You might as well petition for a moderated group.

Steve Young

When are you going to ever post anything about photography, Steve?