Re: RESULT : Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated PASSES 128:24

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:33:54 <QQs*4-ORs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> uk.net.news.config Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

In article <0cbkb5552jm8scebqmi1msub9kjc7dtopi@xxxxxxx>,
.m <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well I'm not interested in getting into another of your 'who said
what' discussions, or reposting committee emails, but there's enough
public evidence, such as you ignoring the advice given to you by the
likes of Graham and Geoff regarding Binaries (or similar - I've no
time to go back and re-read) to demonstrate that you were equally as
complicit in any delays.

Bullshit.
I am not responsible for more than 10 days of the 129 this has taken.

So ... are you saying the komite is responsible for 129 less 10 days of delay? My sums say that means the komite is responsible for 116 days of delay. No-one else, just the komite, 116 days.

I did have a disagreement with the committee about the exact wording
of the prohibition against binaries. That disagreement:

(a) did not contribute to any delay because I conceded almost
immediately (the very same day);

(b) was in any case not a correct piece of advice from the committee,
but rather an unjustifiable piece of obstructionism and in my
view an abuse of authority.

This is going to be fun. You know better than the komite?

The committee insisted without any basis on the use of a specific
(and verbose) wording which is not mandated by any official
documentation. When I challenged this asking for an explanation
of why it should be done that way, I was told that the reason was
`you want your newsgroup created'. Ie, an implied threat. I saw
the writing on the wall and caved.

Describe the length of the gap, please.

The reason you don't want to get into "who said what" discussions is
that I am right and your allegation (that my refusal to take advice
caused the delays) is utterly wrong.

Oh dear. You have your group, komite people cannot say "who said what" in public. It is against the rules of decency. That you challenge them is, quite frankly, nasty and unpleasant.

I had two substantive disagreements with the committee, neither of
which contributed to the delay (the other was about the wording of the
2nd RFD SoD's comments about the committee's comments about
cross

posting); in the case above because I caved immediately, and in
the latter case because the disagreement took entirely within the
mandatory 2nd RFD 10-day waiting period when nothing else was going
on. Again I caved.

You seem to be thinking that because you caved the komite should have given way on other issues too. I don't see why.

A delay was introduced by Control, right at the beginning, who
unjustifiably rejected my first initial RFD on the grounds that
(a) it should be ready to be voted on and therefore should
contain the list of moderators; and
(b) I requested crossposting of the discussion to urc.

Both of these objections are specifically contradicted by the
Guidelines, but obviously I didn't want to make a fuss at the time,
because I didn't want to antagonise the committee, so after a very
brief discussion in which the Committee failed to issue an appropriate
direction to Control, I went away and posted an informal pre-RFD in
uk.rec.cycling to select the moderators.

In the meantime the establishment came to accept that I was entitled
to ask for crossposting of my RFD - but this is a bit of a sore point.
I see that this very discussion itself had an incorrect Followup-To,
as did 2nd RFD (causing some confusion).

Blimey, the whole world is wrong

I assume this is because the
technical machinery used by Control does not conform to the rules laid
out in the Guidelines.

I'm amused.

Not at all. Groups that are badly needed are created with a Fast
Track very quickly.

So you think I should have asked for a Fast Track ?

Yes, it would have been a lot more interesting to read that your moaning.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
.

Relevant Pages