Tristan Miller <tmiller@big-8.org> wrote:

>>. . .

>Back in July we advised the RFD's proponent about the impracticality of
>changing the moderation status of a group, but it seems they decided not
>to revise this clause of the RFD before submitting it for voting.
>Speaking personally, I'm not bothered about the clause as I consider it
>to be ineffective and therefore not binding. That is, the group's
>charter notwithstanding, any subsequent change in moderation status
>would not be automatic but rather would have to go through a formal RFD
>process.

>The proponent is of course free to withdraw the RFD and resubmit it
>without the problematic moderation clause. Otherwise the Board will
>vote on the RFD as-is on Friday, 29 September.

What's the point of RFD if not to purge portions of the proposed charter
of portions that don't belong in it?

I'm glad the proponent was finally convinced to rewrite it, but Tristan's
comment here goes to what the hierarchy administrator's role is with
respect to the proposed newsgroup in the never-ending discussion I'm having
with Marco. It really and truly is limited to the control message while
being less concerned about the newsgroup's charter, if at all concerned.