Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision

From: abbyi897@aol.com (Abby I897)

Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000

graeme@discreet.co.uk (Graeme Griffiths) wrote:

>Ah, O.K. so it was a pressing enough issue to have a flame war >and snipe
on and on at Greg about but not actually pressing >enough to discuss
sensibly and form a new policy.
[snip]
>I certainly didn't read all the posts on this thread
>because it got so nasty and I _give_ a damn. I doubt anybody >(except
possibly Eagle) really kept up.

If you had read all the posts - as I and others have - you would
understand that the approach we finally took in conducting a "non-binding"
vote was to visibly demonstrate a support Greg was insisting didn't exist.

You would also understand that most of us don't want to have to charter
the group, start a new group, or do anything that would further polarize
the industry and force our silent subscribers to "choose sides" in what
amounts to a minor issue:  we wanted to change the wording of a single
item on the FAQ.

Obviously, the issue got out of hand, and what we hoped would be a simple
demonstration of support became an all-out war of wills.  Once it got to
this point, it no longer mattered who was right or wrong, and that's a
shame.

Greg is not wrong for standing on "Usenet Tradition," but the problem some
of us have with him taking that stand is in his apparent inconsistency in
applying it.

He was perfectly willing to discuss the issue informally (a method
appropriate to this group, IMO), both publicly and privately when he did
not feel his position on the issue was threatened.  When some of us
realized we were not being heard, the situation escalated...and
escalated...

It wasn't until LATE in the debate that Greg pulled the "Usenet Tradition"
flag out and started waving it.  Coincidentally, this happened just after
we had given him the evidence he wanted that the FAQ change was
well-supported.

So again, it isn't that he is wrong in doing so, it's that it feels like
an underhanded tactic, considering the way he himself was approaching the
issue most of the way through it.  IMO, if one insists on standing on
ceremony, one should be consistent, and *always* do so.  It's hard to
respect someone who hides behind a tradition they seem to only
conveniently apply.  If a formal CFD was required from the start - and it
clearly wasn't - then Greg could have and should have been  the
appropriate person to post it.

>All I'm saying is there is a now a valid forum for discussion, I >doubt
anybody has the energy to be nasty anymore. If you feel >you have a valid
point, make it, we'll discuss it. If not, the FAQ >stays the same and all
that bandwidth was wasted.

This is a fair and valid statement, but it overlooks one very important
factor:  the CFD proposal itself, and how it was presented.  Yes, we are
all tired of the nastiness; no, we don't want to rehash what has already
been stated ad nauseum; most of us have come to understand that short of
dividing the group, we are banging our heads against the wall on this
issue.

Graeme, you were in there flaming away with nearly everyone else in the
discussion.  You CFD was presented as a kind of, "Okay, you idiots.  Now
that you're all worn down, let's start the whole thing over again on the
'right' terms."

When Virginia proposed a proclamation of independence in 1776 (after
repeated and unheard attempts by Massachusetts), South Carolina responded,
"South Carolina has never seriously considered the issue of independence,
but when a *gentleman* (read: slam against John Adams, the vocal MA
delegate) proposes it, attention must be paid."

What I'm saying here is perhaps you are getting little response to your
CFD because 1) you yourself were a participant in the flame war, and hard
feelings may still exist, and 2) the *way* you called for discussion was,
in itself, kind of a slam...or so it might have been interpreted.

This may or may not be so.  I do not speak for every subscriber, nor do I
pretend to.  In any case, please understand that we have kicked this horse
around for a very long time.  The "Usenet Tradition" that is so commonly
cited on this issue applies to chartering a group, and we don't want to do
that for previously-stated reasons.  We already acknowledge that the issue
- in terms of any action we can reasonably take - is dead.

Your CFD was the right thing to do - and we would have benefitted from
doing it much sooner - but at the time this all started, we didn't see it
as a necessary step.  It was an informal request that became a war.  This
is an unchartered group, and what started as a simple debate became a
hoop-jumping contest.  Nobody won.

Abby

References

Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
graeme@discreet.co.uk (Graeme Griffiths)
Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
graeme@discreet.co.uk (Graeme Griffiths)
Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000