3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr

Steve Young 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)?


"Alan Browne" wrote


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.





--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Steve Young 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)?


"Alan Browne" wrote


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.





--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Steve Young 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)?


"Alan Browne" wrote


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.





--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

"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

"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

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.

There is an unrelated issue, though. Russ or Todd will have to rule
on this, but keep the following in mind. This proposal involves an
established and fairly specialized hierarchy, postings are expected
to come from at least one parent or parent-like group, it seeks to
resolve problems in at least one group in the hierarchy, it expects
to have other posting impacts in other groups in the hierarchy, and
it is highly probable the same is true of this other proposal. In
similar situations, one of two things are supposed to happen: both
proposal merge (a two group proposal), or the later of the two
proposals is deferred until the first has completed the process.

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.

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.

There is an unrelated issue, though. Russ or Todd will have to rule
on this, but keep the following in mind. This proposal involves an
established and fairly specialized hierarchy, postings are expected
to come from at least one parent or parent-like group, it seeks to
resolve problems in at least one group in the hierarchy, it expects
to have other posting impacts in other groups in the hierarchy, and
it is highly probable the same is true of this other proposal. In
similar situations, one of two things are supposed to happen: both
proposal merge (a two group proposal), or the later of the two
proposals is deferred until the first has completed the process.

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 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? It will be the
affected groups that will be voting for the proposed new group(s). The
right/same people will be voting. Most everyone in the 2 affected groups
would be strongly in favor of new charters, IMHO.

There is an unrelated issue, though. Russ or Todd will have to rule
on this, but keep the following in mind. This proposal involves an
established and fairly specialized hierarchy, postings are expected
to come from at least one parent or parent-like group, it seeks to
resolve problems in at least one group in the hierarchy, it expects
to have other posting impacts in other groups in the hierarchy, and
it is highly probable the same is true of this other proposal.

I hope it would help solve problems, but if the 2 original groups, with
their inherent flaws, are not addressed, it's rather dubious, IMO, whether
it will actually present any relief. It seems more like thumbing their
noses and saying na-na-na-na-na. If that were to occur, it wouldn't be
beyond reason to think that trolls and mis-doers will render the new group
unusable. Troll groups react to situations, that's been proven in my book.
As someone else pointed out, having a troll magnet like this would
probably help both of the original groups though.

In
similar situations, one of two things are supposed to happen: both
proposal merge (a two group proposal), or the later of the two
proposals is deferred until the first has completed the process.

I was thinking merging might happen if other proposals are put on the
table. If that were the case, why not all 4(?) charters together, with
one single vote?

Steve Young

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? It will be the
affected groups that will be voting for the proposed new group(s). The
right/same people will be voting. Most everyone in the 2 affected groups
would be strongly in favor of new charters, IMHO.

There is an unrelated issue, though. Russ or Todd will have to rule
on this, but keep the following in mind. This proposal involves an
established and fairly specialized hierarchy, postings are expected
to come from at least one parent or parent-like group, it seeks to
resolve problems in at least one group in the hierarchy, it expects
to have other posting impacts in other groups in the hierarchy, and
it is highly probable the same is true of this other proposal.

I hope it would help solve problems, but if the 2 original groups, with
their inherent flaws, are not addressed, it's rather dubious, IMO, whether
it will actually present any relief. It seems more like thumbing their
noses and saying na-na-na-na-na. If that were to occur, it wouldn't be
beyond reason to think that trolls and mis-doers will render the new group
unusable. Troll groups react to situations, that's been proven in my book.
As someone else pointed out, having a troll magnet like this would
probably help both of the original groups though.

In
similar situations, one of two things are supposed to happen: both
proposal merge (a two group proposal), or the later of the two
proposals is deferred until the first has completed the process.

I was thinking merging might happen if other proposals are put on the
table. If that were the case, why not all 4(?) charters together, with
one single vote?

Steve Young

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.