Xref: utzoo news.groups:25747 comp.os.msdos.misc:664 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ns-mx!ccad.uiowa.edu!emcguire From: emcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.os.msdos.misc Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.os.msdos.desqview Summary: Save face--use replace! Keywords: desqview Message-ID: <1990Nov27.015443.1477@ccad.uiowa.edu> Date: 27 Nov 90 01:54:43 GMT References: <1990Nov26.145552.586@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1990Nov26.192502.1820@beach.csulb.edu> Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Sequential Stream_Of_Consciousness Lines: 29 In article <1990Nov26.145552.586@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Ran Atkinson writes: the Desqview proposal is one that isn't a good idea at the moment. It should be tabled for 6 months In article <1990Nov26.192502.1820@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: I dont think [...] that you table discussion, just the vote at most. There's nothing wrong with shelving a new group proposal without a vote. Lots of new group proposals have been shelved. Two popular reasons: obvious lack of interest and unanimous opposition. You seem to be claiming that there's some convention for tabling a discussion/vote. Well, there are two conventions that come to mind, and neither of them are tabling. Discussion of a new group proposal is taken offline (not tabled) if the proponents--the people in favor of it--disagree about the proposed name and charter: this is in the guidelines for new group creation. A new group proposal is deprecated (not tabled) if it was voted down less than six months earlier: this is not written down anywhere that I know of. Neither of these conventions preclude shelving a discussion by consensus for any reason. Let's avoid slavish worship of net.rules and discuss only the issues. Followups directed away from messy DOS to news.groups. -- peace. -- Ed Nothing important to do? Let's bash.