Re: Low Traffic Groups for Jan - Oct 2005

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:56:12 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<jrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> JRS: In article <3tevhsFse31fU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dated Wed, 9 Nov 2005
> 19:04:26, seen in news:uk.net.news.config, Ali Hopkins
> <fn62@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted :
>
>>Seriously, I think that suggesting that an elected body starts to fiddle
>>around with matters at its own behest, rather than at the demand of, and
>>with the authority of the electorate is the slippery road to perdition.
>>Lousy grammar, but I suspect you get my drift. My view - and it is my
>>personal oone - would be that if the Royal We started to do this, where
>>would it end? What would the criteria and paradigms be? And, frankly, what
>>would be the point?
>
> Consider the case of the best-known UK elected body, the House of
> Commons. Its members propose whatever legislation they see fit, guided
> or misguided both by the views expressed by their electorate and by the
> orders given by their own central Cabals. They rarely feel it necessary
> to consult the electorate on specific points.

Or at all, or if they do they produce such a biased set of questions
that the result is guaranteed to be the way they want it.

Yes, I've considered them a lot, and I think that Ali's "slippery road
to perdition" describes the situation very well.

> The elected UK News Committee is our management body; the only relevant
> management body. Its members have been elected on a basis predominantly
> of perceived competence; so they should be better than MPs.

Of course we are, but we are management, not government. If we were
governing then we would create, remove or block groups as we, your
elected representatives, felt fit (as indeed has traditionally happened
in the Big8).

> However, if the elected body feels that its current remit does not
> justify a particular desirable or necessary action or policy, then it
> can easily ask its electorate by the usual means. A proposal formulated
> by Committee should be a better proposal than one formulated by an
> individual. Mote that we already have collective formulation of about
> half of any RFD; only the topic-specific part is proponent-originated.

The rest is 'boilerplate', yes, but it isn't relevant. It's an
envelope.

> It's clearly beneficial to remove UK newsgroups that have negligible
> activity and no clear prospect of an increase, so the electorate should
> be happy to have such a process operating.

Actually, it isn't "clearly beneficial" at all. I have seen no
indication that it in fact benefits anyone except busybodies. There are
some theories that having 'inactive' groups somehow harms uk.* but no
actual evidence.

> However, the overall benefit is distributed over all users (unlike for
> group creation, where normally only a few will benefit from the creation
> of any particular group); so normal users won't feel called on to call
> for the removal of a general dead group, and any user who does so
> personally is liable to be classed as an interfering control freak.

If they try to remove a group which some people still want, yes. There
have been a number of truly inactive groups which have been removed
without a murmur. That's how the system works, 'interfering control
freaks' who try to remove or change something which is wanted will get
told that their interference is unwanted, people who look at whether a
group is genuinely dead (or who propose removal thinking that it is dead
and then when support for that group arises accept that they were wrong)
are not treated as 'interfering control freaks'.

> We've seen the state the Big-8 has got into as a result of having a
> ruling body that only bothered with the more attractive aspects of
> management of the system.

Actually, what 'state' has it actually got into? OK, it's always been
hard to create groups there, but in general those that do get created
seem to be fairly successful. I've certainly had no problem finding
groups in the Big8 in which I am interested. Of course, altnet is a
different matter (and I don't touch the free.* sewer)...

But if you want a change you know where the RFD maker is.

Chris C
.