RFD process on hold / Call For Ideas
NAN Team
announcement, lower voting totals have indicated to us that there
is a need to lower the bar for group creation. In fact, we originally
instituted a +50 rule in place of the old +100 rule.
However, subsequent discussion raises a more basic question: Does
the process work at all? It is one thing to change +100 to +50,
but is this a pointless cosmetic change to a system which has
outlived its usefulness?
We ask that question frankly, and solicit any and all ideas for
alternatives. We are willing to consider radical change. We are
willing to consider non-radical change. We are willing to consider
no further changes, pending what we learn from the prospective fiat
creation(s).
We open this free-for-all discussion, a "Constitutional Convention"
if you will, for one month. No RFDs or CFVs will be accepted during
this time.
If, after one month, no consensus direction emerges, we will default
back to the current system (including the +50 change). If we have
concrete direction for a radical change by that time, we will have
to see how long it takes to implement. In that sense, the current
hold on RFDs is open-ended.
Finally, we apologize for creating any impression that we were
uninterested in people's thoughts on these matters. Especially as
we consider redoing the entire system, those thoughts become more
important than ever. On the personal level, I (Todd) always expect
people to comment, so it rarely occurs to me to specifically ask
for it. Certainly discussion is the backbone of news.groups, and
of course the purpose of Usenet in sum.
Todd McComb for NAN Team
NAN Team
The one month discussion period concludes today, and we will be
moving to a new system to manage the official group list for the
Big8.
This decision specifically affects the group list, i.e. which groups
are created and which groups are removed, as well as the moderators
for new moderated groups and "dead" moderated groups (those ripe
for an "MVI" procedure).
Regular moderator changes will be handled the same as we do now,
including of course those for non-Big8 groups. Other elements of
what the current NAN Team does now, such as usenet-config, archive,
etc. will remain the same until at least next October (see below).
This will, unfortunately, be a long and rambling announcement. The
following properties of the new group list maintenance (i.e.,
creation, removal, etc.) system have been determined. The subsequent
system will meet every statement in this announcement. Other details
(and non-details) continue to be open for discussion, and a formal
proposal on many of those other issues will follow shortly.
* We will be forming two groups of volunteers, an "executive
committee," and a larger "advisory board."
* The Executive Committee will decide how group-list change proposals
are evaluated, as well as doing the evaluation. They will have
the ultimate say on what is on the group list (and moderator
issues, as described above), subject to some sort of appeals
procedure to be developed. In that sense, they will essentially
be replacing the current NAN Team in that role.
* The Advisory Board will interact with the Executive Committee in
considering proposals, in some way to be determined. The Advisory
Board will replace Group Mentors, in addition to having other
functions to be determined. The Advisory Board will have the
power, under extreme circumstances, to remove the Executive
Committee (whether as a whole or in part is to be determined).
* The initial Executive Committee and part of the Advisory Board
will be chosen by the current NAN Team. Neither group will include
myself or Russ. A formal call for volunteers will follow.
* The remaining members of the Advisory Board will be determined
by public vote, and eventually all members of the Advisory Board
will be determined by public vote. The initial Advisory Board
is charged with determining a public method for selecting its
remaining membership, rotation of terms, internal rules of decorum,
etc.
* Although the Executive Committee can determine its own criteria
for changing the group list, we will be pursuing more scientific
methods. This will be detailed in another announcement, and
although it is recognized that this effort might lead to nothing
useful, it will be undertaken seriously.
* A major point of this change is to make newsgroup proposals and
decisions operate more smoothly. It is crucial that, when fully
functioning, this system involves much less red tape from the
perspective of the proponent and/or general Usenet populace.
* The new Executive Committee is specifically asked to do something
decisive and long-term about the issue of dead groups.
* After today, the current NAN Team will not be making any
further decisions directly on group list issues. We will be
overseeing and mentoring the creation of these new bodies of
volunteers and the mechanics of the new process, but will not be
making decisions on specific group proposals.
* The final decision the current NAN Team will make will come on
October 1, 2006. At that time, we will either declare the system
presently being proposed to be a success (or near enough), or we
will declare it to be a failure. If declared a failure, we will
immediately designate someone else to take charge of any new
system or process, and Russ and I will cease being involved. If
declared a success, Russ and I will also cease having any
decision-making powers. We may, at the discretion of the Executive
Committee, continue to perform routine technical tasks, such as
sending control messages as designated by the Executive Committee,
and maintaining e-mail aliases. Repeating, as of October 1, we
will not be making any decisions on Big8-specific matters. (Brian
may choose to join one of the new bodies of volunteers.)
* The method(s) by which the eventual official process documents
can be changed will be a part of the upcoming discussion, but
what those process documents say will ultimately be validated
by the current NAN Team until October 2006, in consultation with
the new volunteer bodies and the interested public. As per the
previous paragraph, of course, after October 1, the current NAN
Team will have no such authority, nor will including such authority
in the process documents be considered. The hope and expectation
is that these documents will stabilize long before next October,
such that this directive is quickly unnecessary.
* Elections for Advisory Board must begin by October of 2006,
assuming the system is declared a success, and are encouraged to
begin sooner, in anticipation of the system being a success. If
no (as in "not even one board position") elections are underway
by November 1, 2006, all appointed Advisory Board members will
be removed, and the system will be put on hold until the Executive
Committee can find a way to staff the Board adequately via public
vote. There is no specific advance timetable for initially
appointed members to go off the board, but that timetable must
be determined.
Proposals for changes to the group list will be accepted again when
the new Executive Committee says that they can be accepted. My
best guess is that this will be in January 2006. Thank you for
your patience and support.
Todd Michel McComb
list a better list.
Since I declared the October 1st deadline to sunset the previous
NAN Team, I feel compelled to make a few remarks at this time.
I congratulate the Board for doing many good things, and for taking
important steps to move the Big-8 process forward. I am pleased
to hand over maintenance of the group list and related tasks to
them.
Regarding the details of what they were initially charged with,
Russ has many more things to say about the relative significance
of various topics, but I want to make clear the impetus of the
announcements last fall: I was attempting to balance a need for
details on what volunteers were being asked to do, so that they
could make informed decisions on whether to volunteer, and another
need not to dictate a bunch of details to volunteers. Ultimately,
I am very pleased with the Board from a broad perspective, and am
not going to get hung up on details.
That said, let me just echo Russ's comments on the critical need
to find a way to renew the Board and keep people fresh. The Board
has indicated to me that they are ready to take some more steps in
that area, and I certainly wish them luck. I had earlier tried to
sketch my ideas on how to do this, but at the moment, any ideas I
might have are ultimately unimportant. They must find what works
for them.
I also want to re-raise another topic, one which was surprisingly
unpopular given the technical orientation of news.groups, and that
is on measurable data to drive decisions. While many complications
were raised, I still believe that -- with some creativity -- there
is value to be gained from injecting quantifiable metrics into the
decision-making process. I had hoped to contribute in that area,
but ultimately realized that it was best for everyone if I simply
bowed out.
Hopefully these things can be discussed -- by others -- in constructive
fashion. I will not be reading followups. Perhaps I should add
one other comment in response to something I saw posted: There's
no such thing as a "partial success." Either we are handing this
over to the Board or we aren't, and we are.
Thank you again to everyone who has helped foster Usenet and the
Big-8 over the years. And an individual thank you to Bill Aten,
especially for his hard work in keeping the UVV operating while
under constant attack in its final days.
Todd McComb