From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 8 Nov 1992 20:31:23 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov6.212720.2983@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>1) You (who seem to be pretty informed about net guidelines) forgot a  
>portion of the guidelines. We're all only human.

...and a fairly unimportant part, at that. I pay attention to every RFD and
CFV I see. You would be well-advised to do so, as well.
 
>2) Perhaps it's reasonable for a reader of a group to not know that ALL  
>articles containing RFD or CFV in their subject line that are posted in a  
>group affect that group (I'm not even certain this is actually the case,  
>what with rampant cross-posting).

Not a chance. In particular, there's exactly one person responsible for
cross-posting RFDs and CFVs: Dave Lawrence (tale@uunet.uu.net), the moderator
of news.announce.newgroups. Dave does his job very well indeed, and only
posts such articles to groups where the readers would be interested. There
_is_ no "rampant cross-posting" of such articles.

>3) The subjects in the articles in question to r.m.s were sufficiently  
>cryptic to the point where from the SUBJECT ITSELF you couldn't determine  
>that the article dealt with r.m.s.

Hmph. Sorry, but I don't buy that. It's not that far a stretch for someone to
saa "rec.music.makers reorg" and decide that it might just affect their group,
ESPECIALLY IN A GROUP HAVING TO DO WITH MAKING MUSIC!!!!!!!
(sheesh.)

>5) A number of people have come forward to say they were unaware of the  
>vote.

Through their own laziness, perhaps. There is no excuse for them to do so and
claim to be interested in the name of the group.

>Doesn't it seem like the discussion and vote were flawed? Even if it was  
>by the letter of the guidelines, it is clear that many people were  
>uninformed of the process that was happening. If it's as widespread as it  
>appears to be you can't completely blaim the subscribers of the group.

No, it does not. The process was completely open to anyone who wanted to
participate. The vote was held in the normal manner. There is no reason for
someone to claim ignorance except through their own laziness. If they don't
like it, after THREE MONTHS of discussion and voting, that's just too bad.

>I think claiming otherwise in light of the above points is merely  
>defensive and expedient. It also seems pretty demeaning.

When you're being attacked right and left and being called everything except
free and over 21, it's real hard not to get defensive. I've really had enough
of this argument, but it appears that there are folks who won't accept that
they lost, and I will do everything in my power to keep them from destroying
the only really democratic process on the net while they try to overturn a
result fairly and properly arrived at.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth