The elections for the UK Usenet Committee are currenting running, and
the following are standing:

Graham Drabble (incumbent)
Clive D. W. Feather clive@davros (incumbent)
Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat') kat.news@ntlworld (incumbent)
Ian Jackson ijackson@chiark
Jonathan Amery jdamery@chiark
David Damerell damerell@chiark
Matthew Vernon matthew@debian

To vote you will need to find the Call for Votes, which was posted to
uk.net.news.announce and uk.net.news.management, with Message-ID


The hustings take place in uk.net.news.management and are in full flow.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:18:04 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

The elections for the UK Usenet Committee are currenting running, and
the following are standing:

Graham Drabble (incumbent)
Clive D. W. Feather clive@davros (incumbent)
Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat') kat.news@ntlworld (incumbent)
Ian Jackson ijackson@chiark
Jonathan Amery jdamery@chiark
David Damerell damerell@chiark
Matthew Vernon matthew@debian

To vote you will need to find the Call for Votes, which was posted to
uk.net.news.announce and uk.net.news.management, with Message-ID


The hustings take place in uk.net.news.management and are in full flow.



Yawn. What a bore.

Steve Firth wrote:
The elections for the UK Usenet Committee are currenting running, and
the following are standing:

Graham Drabble (incumbent)
Clive D. W. Feather clive@davros (incumbent)
Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat') kat.news@ntlworld (incumbent)
Ian Jackson ijackson@chiark
Jonathan Amery jdamery@chiark
David Damerell damerell@chiark
Matthew Vernon matthew@debian

To vote you will need to find the Call for Votes, which was posted to
uk.net.news.announce and uk.net.news.management, with Message-ID


The hustings take place in uk.net.news.management and are in full flow.

Blimey. I know some of those.

MM yerrs.

there's a couple of loony cyclists in there all right.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:43:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The elections for the UK Usenet Committee are currenting running, and
the following are standing:

Graham Drabble (incumbent) Clive D. W.
Feather clive@davros (incumbent) Fiona Gostling (aka
'kat') kat.news@ntlworld (incumbent) Ian Jackson
ijackson@chiark Jonathan Amery jdamery@chiark David
Damerell damerell@chiark Matthew Vernon
matthew@debian

To vote you will need to find the Call for Votes, which was posted to
uk.net.news.announce and uk.net.news.management, with Message-ID


The hustings take place in uk.net.news.management and are in full flow.

Blimey. I know some of those.

MM yerrs.

there's a couple of loony cyclists in there all right.

It's pretty obvious which they are. They're all supporters of each other
in the 'blurbs'.

Another good test is: if Molly Mockford is a supporter, they're a 'real'
candidate, not a loony cyclist.

Please vote. For the first time EVER, I agree with Steve Firth!

Yes, it is important. And I speak as someone who has used Usenet for (at
least) 26 years.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:43:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The elections for the UK Usenet Committee are currenting running,
and the following are standing:

Graham Drabble (incumbent) Clive D.
W. Feather clive@davros (incumbent) Fiona Gostling
(aka 'kat') kat.news@ntlworld (incumbent) Ian Jackson
ijackson@chiark Jonathan Amery jdamery@chiark David
Damerell damerell@chiark Matthew Vernon
matthew@debian

To vote you will need to find the Call for Votes, which was posted
to uk.net.news.announce and uk.net.news.management, with Message-ID


The hustings take place in uk.net.news.management and are in full
flow.

Blimey. I know some of those.

MM yerrs.

there's a couple of loony cyclists in there all right.

It's pretty obvious which they are. They're all supporters of each
other in the 'blurbs'.

Another good test is: if Molly Mockford is a supporter, they're a
'real' candidate, not a loony cyclist.

Please vote. For the first time EVER, I agree with Steve Firth!

Yes, it is important. And I speak as someone who has used Usenet for
(at least) 26 years.

For those of us who are recent users, how would we find out who are the
loons and who are the good guys? Not sure I'd trust Mr Firths comments.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:43:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The elections for the UK Usenet Committee are currenting running,
and the following are standing:

Graham Drabble (incumbent) Clive D.
W. Feather clive@davros (incumbent) Fiona Gostling
(aka 'kat') kat.news@ntlworld (incumbent) Ian Jackson
ijackson@chiark Jonathan Amery jdamery@chiark David
Damerell damerell@chiark Matthew Vernon
matthew@debian

To vote you will need to find the Call for Votes, which was posted
to uk.net.news.announce and uk.net.news.management, with Message-ID


The hustings take place in uk.net.news.management and are in full
flow.
Blimey. I know some of those.

MM yerrs.

there's a couple of loony cyclists in there all right.
It's pretty obvious which they are. They're all supporters of each
other in the 'blurbs'.

Another good test is: if Molly Mockford is a supporter, they're a
'real' candidate, not a loony cyclist.

Please vote. For the first time EVER, I agree with Steve Firth!

Yes, it is important. And I speak as someone who has used Usenet for
(at least) 26 years.

For those of us who are recent users, how would we find out who are the
loons and who are the good guys? Not sure I'd trust Mr Firths comments.



The 3 incumbents are probably boring but OK. Iain Jackson is IIRC the
looniest of the lot. David Dammerell from my experience, is zany, uber
post modern but fundamentally intelligent and reasonably decent. When
dressed anyway. Not sure about Amery and Vernon. Probably all eco
fascists. But I couldn't say for sure.

Bob Eager wrote:

Please vote. For the first time EVER, I agree with Steve Firth!

And since many will be new to the voting system, it's important to vote
only for the candidates you want in the order that you prefer them. If
you don't want a candidate to be elected do not enter a number against
their name on the ballot form.

This is because the vote is single transferrable vote, and because the
ballot form is slightly obtuse over this issue and makes it seem as if
one must assign a score to each candidate. Leaving a vote blank is
legitimate.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:09:47 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
It's pretty obvious which they are. They're all supporters of each
other in the 'blurbs'.

Another good test is: if Molly Mockford is a supporter, they're a
'real' candidate, not a loony cyclist.

Please vote. For the first time EVER, I agree with Steve Firth!

Yes, it is important. And I speak as someone who has used Usenet for
(at least) 26 years.

For those of us who are recent users, how would we find out who are the
loons and who are the good guys? Not sure I'd trust Mr Firths comments.

Go for Drabble, Feather and Gostling, who (as said elsewhere) are boring
but OK, and have experience. The other four are all supporting each
other, you'll notice. Feather is even supported by Peter Parry!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:36:35 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

Please vote. For the first time EVER, I agree with Steve Firth!

And since many will be new to the voting system, it's important to vote
only for the candidates you want in the order that you prefer them. If
you don't want a candidate to be elected do not enter a number against
their name on the ballot form.

This is because the vote is single transferrable vote, and because the
ballot form is slightly obtuse over this issue and makes it seem as if
one must assign a score to each candidate. Leaving a vote blank is
legitimate.

Yes, I meant to mention that. Put in 1,2,3 if you wish, and omit 4.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:09:47 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:


For those of us who are recent users, how would we find out who are the
loons and who are the good guys? Not sure I'd trust Mr Firths comments.

The loons are

Ian Jackson ijackson@chiark
Jonathan Amery jdamery@chiark
David Damerell damerell@chiark
Matthew Vernon matthew@debian

Jackson is the lead loon. A rabid pedal cyclist whose Lycra seems to
be exerting too much pressure on his nadgers causing significant
intemperance. He pedals around with a helmet camera and posts endless
videos of himself having arguments with puzzled motorists as he
berates them for committing real or imagined transgressions of his
interpretation of the law. The sheer number of arguments he can get
into in one day is really quite impressive. He was removed from the
uk voting organisation a few years back when he came up with a simple
idea of disallowing votes from people who lacked the ability to
reconfigure their email clients to accommodate the extreme
idiosyncrasies of his personal mail server (which of course he built
himself and was therefore perfect - everyone else was wrong)

Well known for his support of one man one vote as long as he is the
man and he has the vote. Totally deaf to opposing opinion he would
make Stalin look like a member of the Liberal Party.

Dameral is another pedal bike rider hanging onto Jacksons coat tails.
Some years ago he was a member of the UK Usenet committee but got a
bit bored and left. Another exponent of the long drawn out pointless
argument school of debate.

Amery and Vernon appear to be simply placeholders (or more properly
bike holders as all are enthusiastic followers of the new religion)
persuaded to participate presumably by Jackson. None of the four seem
to have any ability to deal with people.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...

None of the four seem to have any ability to deal with people.

To be fair, neither do you.

Clive George wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...

None of the four seem to have any ability to deal with people.

To be fair, neither do you.

Tssk, you haven't decloaked yet. Let me help you... Clive is also a
barking mad cyclist.

Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:09:47 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

For those of us who are recent users, how would we find out who are the
loons and who are the good guys? Not sure I'd trust Mr Firths comments.

The loons are

Ian Jackson ijackson@chiark
Jonathan Amery jdamery@chiark
David Damerell damerell@chiark
Matthew Vernon matthew@debian

Jackson is the lead loon. A rabid pedal cyclist whose Lycra seems to
be exerting too much pressure on his nadgers causing significant
intemperance. He pedals around with a helmet camera and posts endless
videos of himself having arguments with puzzled motorists as he
berates them for committing real or imagined transgressions of his
interpretation of the law. The sheer number of arguments he can get
into in one day is really quite impressive. He was removed from the
uk voting organisation a few years back when he came up with a simple
idea of disallowing votes from people who lacked the ability to
reconfigure their email clients to accommodate the extreme
idiosyncrasies of his personal mail server (which of course he built
himself and was therefore perfect - everyone else was wrong)

Well known for his support of one man one vote as long as he is the
man and he has the vote. Totally deaf to opposing opinion he would
make Stalin look like a member of the Liberal Party.

Dameral is another pedal bike rider hanging onto Jacksons coat tails.
Some years ago he was a member of the UK Usenet committee but got a
bit bored and left. Another exponent of the long drawn out pointless
argument school of debate.

Well that's about the way I see it. David will join any amusing cause,
in the name of whatever seems amusing at the time. But I wouldn't rely
on him if I were Jackson.


Amery and Vernon appear to be simply placeholders (or more properly
bike holders as all are enthusiastic followers of the new religion)
persuaded to participate presumably by Jackson. None of the four seem
to have any ability to deal with people.

Well I wouldn't say that exactly. Damerell to my certain knowledge has a
way of getting what he wants by using peoples own perceptions against
them. He's a highly skilled and subtle manipulator, but (when I knew
him) without a cause other than simply making people dance to his tune
for the hell of it. A court jester of the first order. I really rather
liked him. Think Boris. A solution without a problem.

Jackson I am not so sure about: I think I have met him, or crossed
swords on usenet... the faint impression I have is that your description
above is fairly accurate. Immature and earnest beyond belief. Think
Livinsgtone.

Amery and Vernon are probably as you say. along for the ride, to give
some credence to the 'new movement'.

I'd love more background on what actually happened with the biking
issue. There is a lunatic cycling lobby in Cambridge (where most of
these people reside IIRC), That has essentially reduced the whole town
to a haven for pedestrians and cyclists, and made it totally
inaccessible to any form of motor transport. As a result the town is
actually dying as a market town.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:56:43 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
.. .

None of the four seem to have any ability to deal with people.

To be fair, neither do you.

That may or may not be true, but it is certainly truly irrelevant.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:56:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

Jackson I am not so sure about: I think I have met him, or crossed
swords on usenet..

For the vast majority of people the second of these invariably follows
very shortly after the first.

I'd love more background on what actually happened with the biking
issue.

Not a lot really. uk.rec.cycling was apparently reduced to a well
inhabited wasteland by arguments about plastic hats. Most were
started by a well know loon but then kept running fuelled by a group
of bicycle riders who treat cycling as a bit of a religion. In order
to suppress the loon they wanted a moderated group. The process for
doing this is pretty simple but Jackson, who was the proponent, wanted
to do everything his way. This, combined with a lot of comments and a
vote taker falling quite ill at the worst time, meant the process of
forming the group took about 20 weeks. Once it was formed Jackson
started a long running whinge about how it hadn't all happened the
instant he wanted it to. No one else was overly concerned. He then
went and coerced his pedal cycle mates into standing for election.

There is a lunatic cycling lobby in Cambridge (where most of
these people reside IIRC),

I would imagine they are leaders of it. How many normal people video
their trip to work so they can post the "arguments of the day" when
they get home?

In message , Peter Parry
writes
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:56:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

There is a lunatic cycling lobby in Cambridge (where most of
these people reside IIRC),

I would imagine they are leaders of it. How many normal people video
their trip to work so they can post the "arguments of the day" when
they get home?

I imagine this is he?

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/

--
Graeme

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:32:01 +0000, Graeme
wrote:

I imagine this is he?

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/

It is, http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/ gives you
some idea about his obsession.

Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:56:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

Jackson I am not so sure about: I think I have met him, or crossed
swords on usenet..

For the vast majority of people the second of these invariably follows
very shortly after the first.

I'd love more background on what actually happened with the biking
issue.

Not a lot really. uk.rec.cycling was apparently reduced to a well
inhabited wasteland by arguments about plastic hats.

Yup.sounds pretty familar.

Most were
started by a well know loon but then kept running fuelled by a group
of bicycle riders who treat cycling as a bit of a religion.

Yup. they would.

In order
to suppress the loon they wanted a moderated group. The process for
doing this is pretty simple but Jackson, who was the proponent, wanted
to do everything his way. This, combined with a lot of comments and a
vote taker falling quite ill at the worst time, meant the process of
forming the group took about 20 weeks. Once it was formed Jackson
started a long running whinge about how it hadn't all happened the
instant he wanted it to. No one else was overly concerned. He then
went and coerced his pedal cycle mates into standing for election.


Oh dear.

There is a lunatic cycling lobby in Cambridge (where most of
these people reside IIRC),

I would imagine they are leaders of it. How many normal people video
their trip to work so they can post the "arguments of the day" when
they get home?


well, yes.

Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:32:01 +0000, Graeme
wrote:

I imagine this is he?

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/

It is, http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/ gives you
some idea about his obsession.

yes..all the chiarken are slightly off beam.


Life is, after all, a role playing game,

On 1 Nov, 13:53, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:36:35 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

Please vote. For the first time EVER, I agree with Steve Firth!

And since many will be new to the voting system, it's important to vote
only for the candidates you want in the order that you prefer them. If
you don't want a candidate to be elected do not enter a number against
their name on the ballot form.

This is because the vote is single transferrable vote, and because the
ballot form is slightly obtuse over this issue and makes it seem as if
one must assign a score to each candidate. Leaving a vote blank is
legitimate.

Yes, I meant to mention that. Put in 1,2,3 if you wish, and omit 4.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
*http://www.mirrorservice.org

But bear in mind that there are 4 places open on the committee and
only 3 normal candidates, so one of the psycholists is going to be
elected whatever. In order to help ensure it's not Jackson it would be
a good idea to vote for one of chiark gang in 4th place. IMO the least
harmful one is Jonathan Amery.

In message , Peter Parry
wrote
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:32:01 +0000, Graeme
wrote:

I imagine this is he?

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/

It is, http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/ gives you
some idea about his obsession.


The local police must love him.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

pcb1962 wrote:
On 1 Nov, 13:53, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:36:35 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:
Please vote. For the first time EVER, I agree with Steve Firth!
And since many will be new to the voting system, it's important to vote
only for the candidates you want in the order that you prefer them. If
you don't want a candidate to be elected do not enter a number against
their name on the ballot form.
This is because the vote is single transferrable vote, and because the
ballot form is slightly obtuse over this issue and makes it seem as if
one must assign a score to each candidate. Leaving a vote blank is
legitimate.
Yes, I meant to mention that. Put in 1,2,3 if you wish, and omit 4.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

But bear in mind that there are 4 places open on the committee and
only 3 normal candidates, so one of the psycholists is going to be
elected whatever. In order to help ensure it's not Jackson it would be
a good idea to vote for one of chiark gang in 4th place. IMO the least
harmful one is Jonathan Amery.

Oh I'd say Damerrell.

Alan wrote:
In message , Peter Parry
wrote
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:32:01 +0000, Graeme
wrote:

I imagine this is he?

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/

It is, http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/ gives you
some idea about his obsession.


The local police must love him.

Travelling far too fast. Ought to be banned from the roads.

Steve Firth wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

Please vote. For the first time EVER, I agree with Steve Firth!

And since many will be new to the voting system, it's important to vote
only for the candidates you want in the order that you prefer them. If
you don't want a candidate to be elected do not enter a number against
their name on the ballot form.

This is because the vote is single transferrable vote, and because the
ballot form is slightly obtuse over this issue and makes it seem as if
one must assign a score to each candidate. Leaving a vote blank is
legitimate.

I'm not clear how this works. Does each voter have 4 votes count or just
one?

So if 100 people voted thus:

97 vote A 1, B 2, C 3
1 vote E 1, F 2, G 3, H 4
1 vote E 2, F 1, G 3, H 4
1 vote E 2, F 3, G 1, H 4

Would it be A, B, C, E elected
(A 97 votes, B 97 votes, C 97 votes E 3 votes)

or would The result be A, E, F, G elected
(A 97 votes, E 1 vote, F 1 vote, G 1 vote)

Huge wrote:

I know I did.

AOL

Laughed like a drain.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:47:27 +0000, Huge wrote:
Some might find some amusement value in this;

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~i...ks/2007-09-15-
Crash-narrative.txt

I know I did.

LOL!




--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Nick wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

Please vote. For the first time EVER, I agree with Steve Firth!
And since many will be new to the voting system, it's important to vote
only for the candidates you want in the order that you prefer them. If
you don't want a candidate to be elected do not enter a number against
their name on the ballot form.

This is because the vote is single transferrable vote, and because the
ballot form is slightly obtuse over this issue and makes it seem as if
one must assign a score to each candidate. Leaving a vote blank is
legitimate.

I'm not clear how this works. Does each voter have 4 votes count or just
one?

So if 100 people voted thus:

97 vote A 1, B 2, C 3
1 vote E 1, F 2, G 3, H 4
1 vote E 2, F 1, G 3, H 4
1 vote E 2, F 3, G 1, H 4

Would it be A, B, C, E elected
(A 97 votes, B 97 votes, C 97 votes E 3 votes)

or would The result be A, E, F, G elected
(A 97 votes, E 1 vote, F 1 vote, G 1 vote)

It doesn't matter anyway. I emailed them asking for a ballot form, and
they haven't replied.

The thing is patently rigged anyway.

Hey ho Zimbabwe rules, on yer bike..

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:28:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


It doesn't matter anyway. I emailed them asking for a ballot form, and
they haven't replied.

The thing is patently rigged anyway.

I think there are some who would dispute that ill-considered comment.

Hey ho Zimbabwe rules, on yer bike..

Hsd a ballot form come back more or less by return. I'm still waiting an an
acknowledgement of vote, but the instructions did say up to 5 days, and I
only sent the vote in this AM.

--
The Wanderer

Inertia keeps me going!

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2009-11-01, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:32:01 +0000, Graeme
wrote:

I imagine this is he?

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/

It is, http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/ gives you
some idea about his obsession.

Some might find some amusement value in this;

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~i...-narrative.txt

I know I did.

--

Brilliant

Adam

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:28:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It doesn't matter anyway. I emailed them asking for a ballot form, and
they haven't replied.

The thing is patently rigged anyway.

I emailed them and got one straight away. Did it get filtered?

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:35:58 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

Hsd a ballot form come back more or less by return. I'm still waiting an
an acknowledgement of vote, but the instructions did say up to 5 days,
and I only sent the vote in this AM.

I think ballot forms are automated. Acknowledgement of vote requires
humand checking, so takes a while. Mone was still quite quick.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:32:01 +0000, Graeme
wrote:

I imagine this is he?

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/

It is, http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/ gives you
some idea about his obsession.

People like that worry me.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Huge wrote:
On 2009-11-01, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:32:01 +0000, Graeme
wrote:

I imagine this is he?

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/

It is, http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/ gives
you some idea about his obsession.

Some might find some amusement value in this;

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~i...-narrative.txt

I know I did.

There is a God after all :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:32:01 +0000, Graeme
wrote:

I imagine this is he?

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
It is, http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/ gives you
some idea about his obsession.

People like that worry me.


Ever decreasing circles

In article ,
(Steve Firth) writes:
The elections for the UK Usenet Committee are currenting running, and
the following are standing:

Graham Drabble (incumbent)
Clive D. W. Feather clive@davros (incumbent)
Fiona Gostling (aka 'kat') kat.news@ntlworld (incumbent)
Ian Jackson ijackson@chiark
Jonathan Amery jdamery@chiark
David Damerell damerell@chiark
Matthew Vernon matthew@debian

To vote you will need to find the Call for Votes, which was posted to
uk.net.news.announce and uk.net.news.management, with Message-ID


The hustings take place in uk.net.news.management and are in full flow.

A heads-up - just noticed today is the last day to vote.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]