"Woodchuck Bill" wrote in message
...
"Tee" wrote in news:2t05baF1r5qf0U1@uni-
berlin.de:

Figured I'd post this here because I don't want to resub to the ng the
proposal was posted to. I saw some of you reply there, as did I, but
figured it may be discussion worthy here in a non-official capacity.


Why didn't you post this during the official discussion period?

Which was from when to when? I don't recall being told I could only discuss
this issue during a certain timeframe. The CFV brought the issue back to my
attention hence the post today.

It is bad
netiquette to post opinion, or "campaign" one way or another during the
CFV
phase.

1. I'm not campaigning. If a new group does or does not join the ranks of
rec.pets.dogs then I promise I won't be losing any sleep over it nor do I
think many other regulars in *behavior would.

2. Since the original proposal I've had some time to mull it over and find
that I'm not entirely certain how, or even if, I'll vote.

3. Regardless of which way I vote I find talking about the proposed group in
a related ng like this, with regulars I know, to be beneficial. Some will
have points I didn't consider or counter points I already have considered.
Unfortunately its outside the specified timeframe but I wasn't aware there
was one in the first place.

--
Tara