Dott Garzilli's complaint

Ludo ludo at
Thu Nov 30 18:47:59 UTC 1995

I kept silent for a while, following the thread on the new usenet group 
proposed by Mr. Wagers, not wanting to waste more bandwidth and mailbox 
estate, but as Mr. Wagers insists on posting about his proposal, I think 
that some clarifications are needed.
Mr. Wagers messages in response to Dr. Garzilli's complaint raise two 
different questions:

1 - Netiquette

There is a set of rules and customs which control the creation of a new 
Usenet group. Mr. Wagers has violated some of them.

- The USENET NEWSGROUP CREATION COMPANION, an official document available 
  from states 
  clearly that, before including a mailing list in a CFV, the proponent 
  should make sure that most of the members of the mailing list are able to 
  receive and read the proposed group. I do not recall Mr. Wagers doing 

- The same document states that the proponent should make sure that 
  "the CFV posted to the mailing list is the one which appears in 
  news.announce.newgroups, or the votes received will be invalid.".
  Another official document, HOW TO CREATE A USENET NEWSGROUP, available
  from states that
  "A couple of repeats of the call for votes may be posted during the
  vote, provided that they contain similar clear, unbiased instructions for
  casting a vote as the original, and provided that it is really a repeat
  of the call for votes on the SAME proposal."
  Mr. Wagers's posting to Indology of November 29 (Subject: Re: new 
  translations) does not appear to conform to those rules. The subject 
  of his posting, and the content of the message are highly irregular. 
  Moreover, in his reply to Dott. Garzilli's message he wrote "I was 
  advised by my votetaker that, instead, I should post notices of the CFV 
  to the relevant mailing lists. This is what I have done. (BTW: the
  automatically-posted notices are much longer, including the complete 
  He MUST include the complete CFV, if he wants to involve a mailing list
  in his newsgroup proposal!
  At the same time, the flood of personal messages (some of them empty) 
  advertising his CFV that Mr. Wagers addressed to several people 
  interested in his mailing list project are irregular.

2 - Mr Wagers's requests for help

As the Technical Editor of Dott. Garzilli's Journals I have been involved
in Mr. Wagers's requests (yes, more than one!) for help addressed to Dott. 
As Mr. Wagers wrote in his reply to Dott. Garzilli's complaint:
"I corresponded, as I recall, on one day with Dott. Enrica Garzilli when
looking for a host for a mailing list. The correspondence would have
consisted of a single, brief enquiry from me, but Dott. Enrica Garzilli
kept insisting for more information from me (while bringing me up to date
on netiquette)."

The correspondence would have consisted of a single, brief reply IF Dott. 
Garzilli had not been willing to cooperate with MR. Wagers, and 
offer him some help and technical resources. 
Instead, she offered our help and asked him some questions, in 
order to know more about the person she was going to work with. I am not 
good in academic politics, but I find Dott. Garzilli's replies perfectly 
legitimate and helpful. After Mr. Wagers' requires, we asked our service 
provider for the cost and 
technical questions involved in creating a mailing list, we devoted part 
of our precious time to figure out how, and if, such a list could be 
set up, and at which costs. Unfortunately, we never got a reply from Mr. 
Wagers. Maybe after his CFV, he was too busy promoting his new group to  
"handle requests [read: offers] for advice or help with respect and 

Arch. Ludovico Magnocavallo

   Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, 
   because the stakes are so low.
                              Wallace Sayre

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list