"Woodchuck Bill"  wrote 
  
 > "Steve Young"  wrote 
  
 >>> I think I've seen 
 >>> too many postings asking for the group creation process to be used 
 >>> for charter changes.  Sorry, folks. 
 >> 
 >> so whatcha gonna do?  call er quitz? 
 >> 
 >> or help us build community? :) 
 > 
 > Why don't you understand that the team in place does not have the 
 > resources to handle charter changes? It is easy to dream of something 
 > like that,  but not at all easy to execute without the resources. 
 > There are a limited number of volunteers involved. They already 
 > have their hands full. I suggest you show some gratitude for these 
 >  nice people that make Usenet possible without asking for a dime 
 > in return. Demanding more from  already overworked volunteers 
 > is greedy, at the least. 
  
 I guess where I'm having trouble with this is that a reorg would make 2 
 new named groups, and those groups would be entered into the queue. Let's 
 say a reorged rpd to be the new group rec.photo.digital.misc.misc. and 
 rec.photo.equipment.35mm to become rec.photo.equipment.35mm.misc.misc 
 Now there becomes 2 new charters, with new group names to tussle over. 
 Why not  forget about tussling over misc.misc names and just work on the 
 charters? Seems I'm asking to cut the work load,  no? 
  
  
  
 > If you are interested in creating such a system, you have the thumbs up 
 > from someone at the top. If you are not willing to go through all that 
 > trouble yourself, please do not expect others to do it. 
  
 Does it *really* need to be done from scratch? 
 Is synergy possible? 
  
 :)x 
  
 -- 
 One thing you can guarantee, though: if you don't try, you'll never 
 have to find out it might have succeeded, and you can be very smug 
 about your species' extinction as it is happening: "I _told_ them 
 there was no way to bring peace to this planet!" 
 - xanthian 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)