RESULT: policy to create a ninth newsgroup hierarchy - fails
The Big-8 Management Board
policy: create a ninth newsgroup hierarchy - fails
Following a period for comments begun with the Last Calls for Comments
posted on 24 Oct 2007, the Big-8 Management Board has decided by consensus
to NOT adopt the below-listed policy.
POLICY:
A new ninth hierarchy, will be created under the auspices of the Big 8
Management Board (B8MB). The B8MB will ensure that proper control
messages are issued and that the hierarchy receives appropriate
publicity on its web site and elsewhere.
Oversight Policy
================
The B8MB will appoint a hierarchy manager to oversee day-to-day
management of the ninth hierarchy. The B8MB may remove the hierarchy
manager at their discretion.
The hierarchy manager will decide the name of the hierarchy in
consultation with the B8MB.
The hierarchy manager may propose new groups, or removal of groups
that have failed. The B8MB will have 7 days to veto any proposed
changes. If they do not veto the proposed changes, the B8MB will
ensure that the control messages to effect the changes are sent, and
shall announce the changes in news.announce.newgroups.
Any member of the B8MB may place a hold on a proposed change during
the 7 day period, which will cause a single 7-day extension to the
period in which the proposed change is considered. Only one extension
is permitted.
The B8MB may change any part of the oversight policy, or the policy
for the ninth hierarchy. They are encouraged to hold public
discussion in news.groups.proposals prior to making any changes.
Policy For Ninth Hierarchy
==========================
Discussion of potential new groups, and other matters affecting the
ninth hierarchy should occur in <ninth>.config.
The hierarchy manager shall encourage simple methods for ordinary
users to propose potential groups.
No moderated newsgroups.
Group Names shall consist of 3 elements: (1) The hierarchy name; (2) A
broad topic area; (3) A topic name. Longer names (not additional
elements) can be used if more definition is required. The 3rd element
may be omitted if the group is intended as a general group for a broad
topic area.
No cross-posting.
No advertising, including no personal advertising.
No binaries.
Groups may have charters in the traditional sense that simply explain
what the topic of the newsgroup is. They should not attempt to
establish "rules" for participation in the newsgroup. Interested
persons may provide a charter of 250 words or less that can be placed
in newgroup control messages, web sites, etc.
Groups that do not have a reasonable amount of traffic after a
reasonable amount of time shall be removed.
Jump Start for Ninth Hierarchy
==============================
The hierarchy manager for the ninth hierarchy shall propose an initial
set of newsgroups that consists of at least 20 groups in addition to
<ninth>.config.
DISTRIBUTION:
This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups (moderated)
news.groups.proposals (moderated)
news.groups
PROPONENT:
Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
CHANGE HISTORY:
2007-09-20 1st RFD
2007-10-24 2nd RFD/LCC
2007-10-30 Results (fails)
Jim Riley
<bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
> RESULT
> policy: create a ninth newsgroup hierarchy - fails
>
>Following a period for comments begun with the Last Calls for Comments
>posted on 24 Oct 2007, the Big-8 Management Board has decided by consensus
>to NOT adopt the below-listed policy.
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
If the Board decides not to create the new group, the Board’s
announcement of the decision will include an explanation of why the
proposal was rejected. Furthermore, the Board will explain to the
proponent, either privately or in the decision announcement, what,
if anything, he or she can do to improve the proposal before asking
the Board to reconsider it.
--
Jim Riley
Dave Sill
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:58:50 -0500, The Big-8 Management Board
> <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
>
>> RESULT
>> policy: create a ninth newsgroup hierarchy - fails
>>
>> Following a period for comments begun with the Last Calls for Comments
>> posted on 24 Oct 2007, the Big-8 Management Board has decided by consensus
>> to NOT adopt the below-listed policy.
>
> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
>
> If the Board decides not to create the new group, the Board’s
> announcement of the decision will include an explanation of why the
> proposal was rejected.
For the record, I opposed this wording in the policy. The problem is
that a yes/no vote doesn't provide the information necessary to say why
the vote failed. My feeling, in this case, is that the proposal simply
wasn't supported by anyone on the board. It's not that it's a bad idea,
maybe it's just not the right time.
> Furthermore, the Board will explain to the
> proponent, either privately or in the decision announcement, what,
> if anything, he or she can do to improve the proposal before asking
> the Board to reconsider it.
For me, this proposal was a non-starter, and no amount of RFD tweaking
is going to fix that. For a *major* issue like adding a new hierarchy, I
think a prerequisite to a formal RFD should be *some* indication of
widespread support by the public and the board.
--
Dave Sill, not speaking for the board
Tim Skirvin
Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> writes:
>> RESULT
>> policy: create a ninth newsgroup hierarchy - fails
>> Following a period for comments begun with the Last Calls for Comments
>> posted on 24 Oct 2007, the Big-8 Management Board has decided by consensus
>> to NOT adopt the below-listed policy.
> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
> If the Board decides not to create the new group, the Board's
> announcement of the decision will include an explanation of why the
> proposal was rejected.
We originally interpreted this to apply only to creation proposals;
and this was a policy proposal, at its heart. But you're right, you are
owed an explanation. And so:
During discussion, the Board observed no groundswell of support for this
proposal. And while there is no one reason that this proposal is
unacceptable, there is nobody on this Board that actively supports the
proposal. As such, it is a non-starter, according to a consensus of the
Board.
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>