"an_old_friend" ) writes:
KC4UAI wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:08 -0600, "Paul W. Schleck, K3FU"
wrote:
SNIP

first the timing of this proposal would seem to indicate that the
makers of the of are unable to deviler the proposed NG in a timely
manner as this was first being discussed in July 2006 with a promised
delveiery date of falll 2006 as can be by this being JAN 2007 I find
it highly dubious that the ng can in fact function in timely if it
can't be rolled out in a timly manner

I don't see a valid reason to object for this reason. This was in
progress for quite some time and the fact that we didn't rush out and
file the RFD before we felt we where ready seems like a good thing to
me.

that you clearly under estimated the time required casts doubts on your
ability to deliver the rest

It's likely worth pointing out that their "ability to deliver" actually
rests on outsiders.

This isn't a popularity vote (and of course this isn't yet a vote). The
process is about ensuring that not yet another unneeded newsgroup is
created. So while I forget the exact proportions, a Call for Vote
requires not just sufficient votes in favor, but those votes have
to be greater than the no votes. And unlike those particularly
interested in the topic at hand, the no votes can come from everywhere,
because yet another newsgroup requires more resources, and the voting
process is to filter out the unneeded.

So a vote, if it gets that far (and getting to a vote also
depends on those outsiders), will require not just convincing
hams to vote for it, it requires convincing outsiders that there
is good reason not to vote against the new newsgroup.

I should also point out, while I'm posting, that you'd actually
want disinterested moderators. Because then they'd be filtering
the junk, and not being concerned with what is being said beyond
making sure it's not off-topic. "Balanced" moderators may be
worse than disinterested moderators.

Michael VE2BVW