From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:17:12 GMT
Followup-To: rec.music.makers,rec.music.synth,news.groups,news.admin
Organization: negligable

In article <7638.9211112219@csparc12.scs.leeds.ac.uk> ross-c@scs.leeds.ac.uk writes:
>In article <cuz.721347201@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> you write:
>>	Yes, Subjects of little or no relevance are posted to groups
>>all the time. RFDs and CFVs are not crossposted to groups for no
>>reason however. If people can't realize this, IT IS thier fault. We
>
>It is *NEVER* anyone's fault to not know something they were never told.
>I was never told about RFDs and CFVs. Can I call for a straw poll to 
>find out what percentage of USENET readers were told, and who found out
>by accident. To say that RFDs and CFVs should obviously stand out as important
>in a acronym-full group like rec.music.synth (typical subject line: "Does a
>JX8P have a DCF or a VCF?") is NOT a solid argument.

I was one of the first people to make this argument.

There has been one counter-argument that I have accepted as valid.

The guidelines need only establish that effort was made to contact
the group to inform it of the ongoing discussion.

It is up to the parties for or against to do any campaigning to
drum up more interest and/or votes from their constuancies (sp?).

For example, how many of you know the names of the other presidential
candidates from the last election aside from the big 3?  Do you know
the libertarian candidate's name?  If so, are you a libertarian?  What
about the candidates w/ even lower recognition?

It was up to the Libertarian party to publicize their candidate in
order to bring their supporters into the voting booth and let their
opposition know who they were.

Likewise it was up to the anti-name-change faction (which was represented
in the discussions) to make their constituents aware of what was going
on and to bring them in on the voting.

The issue WAS posted to the group.  That is sufficient (minimal, but
sufficient).  Any greater efforts should come from the partisans.

Were there any "Hey gang! Let's stop this!" messages posted before
the vote?  If not then stop complaining -- you were part of the problem.

Unfortunately I don't recall the name of the guy that has been kicking
up all the fuss, or I would address that previous remark at him.  It
bears repeating -- if there were not enough supporters of his position
voting it was, in part, due to his own lack of initiative, and he has
no grounds now for complaining.

Again I repeat -- I was one of the first to suggest that the guidelines
be altered to require something with a subject less ambiguous than "RFD:..." 
be posted to the affected groups.  I now agree that notification is
all that should be required and that anything further is incumbent upon
the interested parties.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lazy day, Sunday afternoon.			|
Like to get your feet up, watch TV.		|	-Richard Hartman	
Sunday roast is something good to eat,		|	hartman@uLogic.COM
must be lamb to day 'cause beef was last week!	|