Steve Young  wrote: 
 >"Woodchuck Bill"  wrote 
  
 >> 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? 
  
 No.  You add to the work load by adding two more line items that 
 have to be analyzed and tallied, that normally would never be 
 allowed.  Then you add to that the possibility that someone will 
 have to make a call on dodgy vote results or hostile charter 
 changes.  I don't think Russ' (or anyone in that team) want to 
 have to deal with internal politics and sociology when that stuff 
 really is none of their business in the first place.  Charter 
 changes are a potentially worse minefield than the types of 
 proposals the current system allows (e.g. moratorium on moderation 
 of unmoderated groups... if they feel that's a minefield, then 
 charter changes is a nuclear holocaust in waiting). 
  
 Right now, charter-only changes thematically do not belong in the 
 existing archives.  The process and archives are only for the 
 point at which a group emerges or disappears.  It isn't meant 
 to record interim status changes (apart from moderation status, 
 which is arguably nearly the same as a new group being created, 
 especially nowdays).  If we want to record charters, we better 
 put them in the right place, and manage them properly, and the 
 existing archives are not that place and the existing process 
 is not the right way of managing them. 
  
 Another problem to overcome is that the ballots are currently 
 configured for two possibilities: "create the group" and "oppose 
 the creation of the group".  You could ask the UVV to modify their 
 scripts to spit out a ballot that has line items for "change this 
 charter" and "do not change this charter", and some may have the 
 switches to do it, but generally I wouldn't expect them to want to 
 deal with it.  Removing groups was a bit of a hassle, and I expect 
 similar problems with the charter suggestion. 
  
 ... 
 >> 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? 
  
 Yes.  A new archive would be needed.  New maintenance scripts. 
 New voting parameters and criteria have to be considered.  New 
 people have to be found to work it.  Someone has to make the 
 calls on iffy votes.  Someone may have to make the call on spurious 
 or hostile charter changes.  A widely publicized and user-friendly 
 interface (i.e. web site) would be nice.  Maybe a new announce 
 group for charters (charter changes don't fit under the category 
 of the "newgroups" node of news.announce.newgroups). 
  
 >Is synergy possible? 
  
 To some extent yes, but not to the extent of using the current 
 infrastructure.  News.groups can remain as the central discussion 
 group.  A lot of it would have to be new, though.  Once you 
 got the thing running, it's not such a big deal, but getting 
 it running requires labor and resources. 
  
 ru 
  
 -- 
 My standard proposals rant: 
 Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic 
 is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. 
 Usenet popularity is the primary consideration. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)