Responsibility for moderated groups
c...@nospam.netunix.com
It has become clear that the functioning of various moderated newssgroups
in the uk hierarchy has been compromised due either to a lack of
effective moderators or to technical issues.
There is no clear policy in place for the committee to address these
issues by intervention, indeed the very nature of the moderation
process makes it difficult to contact users if moderation has failed.
I am therefore proposing that the committee should be made formally
responsible for the proper administration of moderated groups and that
whilst responsibility will normally be delegated to volunteers for
individual groups the ultimate responsibility resides with the
committee who may take any action deemed necessary for proper
management and functioning of any moderated group.
DRAFT PROTOCOL
a) The delegation of moderation responsibility shall at all times be
subject to the moderation, including both technical and human parts,
being fit for purpose.
b) The committee should monitor activity in moderated newsgroups and
should initiate action if activity appears to be absent or if any
complaint is received.
c) If a message posted to a group fails to appear within 48 hours
and no rejection notice is received the moderation shall be deemed to
be not fit for purpose.
d) If an email message addressed to the standard *-req...@usenet.org.uk
moderators contact address fails to elicit a response within 48 hours
the moderation shall be deemed to be not fit for purpose.
e) Control may divert the moderation addresses to a dummy system which
approves all messages in order to facilitate further action including
but not limited to evaluating interest or lack of interest in a group
prior to removal.
f) Control may divert the moderation addresses to a moderation system
which is fit for purpose and appoint interim moderators before calling
an RFD for the replacement of volunteer moderators if the fitness for
purpose of an existing delegation is called into question.
John Blundell
writes
>d) If an email message addressed to the standard
>*-req...@usenet.org.uk moderators contact address fails to elicit a
>response within 48 hours the moderation shall be deemed to be not fit
>for purpose.
Does this include automated acknowledgements or is this section about
human replies?
--
John Blundell
Steve Firth
> I am therefore proposing that the committee should be made formally
> responsible for the proper administration of moderated groups
Doesn't get my support and it's yet another mistaken loon thinking that
the committee does or should control everything. No way Jos�. The
committe regulates it does not and should not control the day to day
management of UK Usenet.
Even where this policy causes a disservice to be done to users, as in
the case of the farce that is urcm, then the principle of management of
the hierarchy by the users for the users should prevail. This is an
anarchy, those like Jackson who attempt to behave in a way that is in
bad faith and pisses on the users shall be nagged to death and
un-cooperated into a corner, but not much more.
Eric Frank Russell's Gand culture from "And Then There Were None" should
be the model, not some totalitarian foot-on-the-neck PolitBuro.
http://www.simpleliberty.org/bookshelf/and_then_there_were_none.htm
Eleanor Blair
>
>I am therefore proposing that the committee should be made formally
>responsible for the proper administration of moderated groups and that
>whilst responsibility will normally be delegated to volunteers for
>individual groups the ultimate responsibility resides with the
>committee who may take any action deemed necessary for proper
>management and functioning of any moderated group.
I'm not sure I agree with this at all, but anyway:
>a) The delegation of moderation responsibility shall at all times be
>subject to the moderation, including both technical and human parts,
>being fit for purpose.
That doesn't seem to be unreasonable.
>b) The committee should monitor activity in moderated newsgroups and
>should initiate action if activity appears to be absent or if any
>complaint is received.
Expecting the committee to go to the effort of pro-actively
monitoring all moderated groups is unreasonable though.
>c) If a message posted to a group fails to appear within 48 hours
>and no rejection notice is received the moderation shall be deemed to
>be not fit for purpose.
So the moderators aren't allowed to take Christmas off then? IMO
48-hours is too short, even if most groups won't normally have any gaps
of that length.
And this at the very least needs re-writing to not include those posters
who do not use a valid From:/Reply-to: address. If there's no address
on the message clearly no moderation report can be sent to the sender.
In at least some groups there's no rule that postings must have valid
addreses.
Of course this isn't something anyone other than an individual poster
can be aware of.
>d) If an email message addressed to the standard *-req...@usenet.org.uk
>moderators contact address fails to elicit a response within 48 hours
>the moderation shall be deemed to be not fit for purpose.
Out of curiosity what do the usenet.org.uk postmasters do with bounced
bounces? If they are unable to deliver a bounce and then just silently
drop it are they fit for purpose? Is this forwarding address considered
part of the moderation machinery?
And again this timescale does not allow for breaks.
>e) Control may divert the moderation addresses to a dummy system which
>approves all messages in order to facilitate further action including
>but not limited to evaluating interest or lack of interest in a group
>prior to removal.
That's awfully open ended. You've not limited it in any way, so it
could be done unnecessarily, be left in place longer than needed, and
could completely kill a group that is in need of the moderation.
>f) Control may divert the moderation addresses to a moderation system
>which is fit for purpose and appoint interim moderators before calling
>an RFD for the replacement of volunteer moderators if the fitness for
>purpose of an existing delegation is called into question.
And I think that's overkill, certainly it needs to be *proved* rather
than just questioned before it's appropriate to remove the current
moderators or moderation system.
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>Even where this policy causes a disservice to be done to users, as in
>the case of the farce that is urcm, then the principle of management of
>the hierarchy by the users for the users should prevail. This is an
>anarchy, those like Jackson who attempt to behave in a way that is in
>bad faith and pisses on the users shall be nagged to death and
>un-cooperated into a corner, but not much more.
I agree.
As far as the case in point goes, urcm exists. If you want to play by
its rules use it. If not move on use other groups, or RFD your own.
urcm will sort itself out. Apart from the mechanics, it's nothing to
do with the committee.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>I am therefore proposing that the committee should be made formally
>responsible for the proper administration of moderated groups
Why stop there? I think we should hold them personally responsible for
the entire content of the uk.* hierarchy, just as Michael Fish was
responsible for Ye Greatte Storme.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.
Adrian
like they were saying:
>>b) The committee should monitor activity in moderated newsgroups and
>>should initiate action if activity appears to be absent or if any
>>complaint is received.
> Expecting the committee to go to the effort of pro-actively monitoring
> all moderated groups is unreasonable though.
It reads as if crn is suggesting a high-level awareness of the activity
and any incipient problems in the groups, rather than actively micro-
managing every single moderation decision. Not exactly onerous.
>>c) If a message posted to a group fails to appear within 48 hours and no
>>rejection notice is received the moderation shall be deemed to be not
>>fit for purpose.
> So the moderators aren't allowed to take Christmas off then? IMO
> 48-hours is too short, even if most groups won't normally have any gaps
> of that length.
I'd agree with that. The kind of SLA you expect varies according to the
contracts you're willing to pay for... <grin>
However, 48 hours is a generous target _for normal purposes_. It's not
unreasonable to expect a moderation team to pre-empt holidays and maybe
draft in temporary moderators for that period. I'd probably add some kind
of "exceptional circumstances" rider to that, with moderation teams
expected to account for those circumstances.
Maybe call it 72hrs, though.
> And this at the very least needs re-writing to not include those posters
> who do not use a valid From:/Reply-to: address. If there's no address
> on the message clearly no moderation report can be sent to the sender.
>
> In at least some groups there's no rule that postings must have valid
> addreses.
>
> Of course this isn't something anyone other than an individual poster
> can be aware of.
It is if you follow the ULM model, where rejected posts are available.
>>f) Control may divert the moderation addresses to a moderation system
>>which is fit for purpose and appoint interim moderators before calling
>>an RFD for the replacement of volunteer moderators if the fitness for
>>purpose of an existing delegation is called into question.
> And I think that's overkill, certainly it needs to be *proved* rather
> than just questioned before it's appropriate to remove the current
> moderators or moderation system.
Agreed. Innocent until proven guilty. But there does need to be a formal
mechanism to regain control of a neglected or abused (through malice or
incompetence) moderation process.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
Good question.
The objective is to confirm that human moderators exist and are responsive
so an automated response is probably not acceptable. OTOH a human might
set up an automated "Away for a day" response and follow up with a human
message on return. How long is acceptable for moderators to be missing ?.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> <c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote:
>
> > I am therefore proposing that the committee should be made formally
> > responsible for the proper administration of moderated groups
>
> Doesn't get my support and it's yet another mistaken loon thinking that
> the committee does or should control everything. No way Jos�. The
> committe regulates it does not and should not control the day to day
> management of UK Usenet.
>
> Even where this policy causes a disservice to be done to users, as in
> the case of the farce that is urcm, then the principle of management of
> the hierarchy by the users for the users should prevail. This is an
> anarchy, those like Jackson who attempt to behave in a way that is in
> bad faith and pisses on the users shall be nagged to death and
> un-cooperated into a corner, but not much more.
Why are you jumping to conclusions and involving Jackson. He is only
a minor irritation when compared to the moderators and/or their systems
who have vanished leaving their groups in a useless state with no
effective recourse for users.
The Happy Hippy
<c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote ...
> I am therefore proposing that the committee should be made formally
> responsible for the proper administration of moderated groups and that
> whilst responsibility will normally be delegated to volunteers for
> individual groups the ultimate responsibility resides with the
> committee who may take any action deemed necessary for proper
> management and functioning of any moderated group.
That seems reasonable, but it's not necessary to get into the complexities
of specifics. I'd suggest something like -
"When a continuing state of failure of moderation is identified and brough
to the attention of the Committee -
a) The Committee will determine whether a continuing state of failure of
moderation exists or not within X days.
b) Where acontinuing state of failure of moderation has been identified the
Committee may take whatever steps it deems necessary to rectify that
failure."
If felt too wide-sweeping, what amounts to a continuing state of moderation
failure can be defined, as can what actions the Committee are entitled to
take.
That's not much different to what the current situation is and gives the
Committee the power to not act as they seem to believe should be the case
here, but grants the power to do so if they believe otherwise. A failure of
Committee to act where it's felt is should be acting can be dealt with by
MoNC.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> crn wrote:
>
> >b) The committee should monitor activity in moderated newsgroups and
> >should initiate action if activity appears to be absent or if any
> >complaint is received.
>
> Expecting the committee to go to the effort of pro-actively
> monitoring all moderated groups is unreasonable though.
It should be easy to set up an automated system to monitor the number
of messages in each group and compare this to historical usage.
For high traffic groups this could detect problems in 24 hours, for low
traffic groups such as *.announce the historical volume may be only
a few messages per month or less.
Matthew Vernon
> In uk.net.news.config, c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>
> >There is no clear policy in place for the committee to address these
> >issues by intervention, indeed the very nature of the moderation
> >process makes it difficult to contact users if moderation has failed.
>
> I think at most we need something which says,
>
> "In exceptional circumstances (including but not limited to: complete loss
> of the moderation team, technical issues preventing any moderated posts
> being injected, etc.) it may be necessary to redirect moderated group
> submission addresses to enable a uk.* group to continue working. In those
> cases, any actions shall be proposed in an RFD in accordance with the
> GUIDELINES FOR GROUP CREATION WITHIN THE UK HIERARCHY, insofar
> as they are applicable."
Err, you can already raise an RFD to make this happen in the
circumstances described.
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
Dick Gaughan
+0000 (UTC), c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>I am therefore proposing that the committee should be made formally
>responsible for the proper administration of moderated groups and that
>whilst responsibility will normally be delegated to volunteers for
>individual groups the ultimate responsibility resides with the
>committee who may take any action deemed necessary for proper
>management and functioning of any moderated group.
100% opposed to this notion.
Making rules for the entire hierarchy to try to sort a problem
which has arisen in connection with one group - or even a bunch of
dead groups - is not a sensible course of action IMO.
So the moderators of an unused group are uncontactable. Do you
think being able to contact them is going to revive the group? If
a group is dead it's because nobody wants to use it, for whatever
reasons, and have gone elsewhere. End of story. The identities or
contactability of the once-upon-a-time moderators is irrelevant
and simply introducing new moderators in a forlorn hope of
resurrecting the group is a rehash of "build it and they'll come",
a complete non-starter.
Together with a couple of trolls/socks, you are exhibiting an
unwillingness - deliberate or otherwise - to grasp the essential
uncontrolled and uncontrollable nature of Usenet. Nobody runs it,
nobody governs it, nobody owns it [1] it exists purely on the
goodwill of those whose equipment it passes through/ is stored on
and nobody can tell them what to do with their own equipment. If
they decide they don't like what you've asked them to do, or that
doing it will give them an extra workload, it doesn't get done.
Trying to introduce control over Usenet is as futile as trying to
protect the Titanic by telling the iceberg to get out of the way.
If you want to keep doing it, carry on, nobody will or can stop
you trying. But a lot of people will eventually get pissed off and
regard you as clue-resistant.
The trolls I don't give a fuck about, but you appear to at least
be genuine so I'm just trying to help you not waste your time and
end up in a load of killfiles.
[1] Well, actually, Fluffy owns it but never interferes.
--
DG
jms
<blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>As far as the case in point goes, urcm exists. If you want to play by
>its rules use it. If not move on use other groups, or RFD your own.
>
>urcm will sort itself out. Apart from the mechanics, it's nothing to
>do with the committee.
Yes - but what is being said is that it could/should be.
URCM has demonstrated admirably how a moderated group can be misused
and abused Surely the idea of newsgroups is that they are public and
open to anyone who obeys the established rules.
They are not private clubs run for members only - URCM is.
If the cycling clique wanted their own little club - then they should
have created one - nothing to do with uk news. This was stated at RFD
time.
Indeed - there were so many things which were said at RFD time -
which people said would be unacceptable and there was nothing to worry
about. These things are now coming true.
There is no reason why more moderated groups based on the clique
mentality of URCM should not be formed.
URCM has already made a mockery of moderated groups in uk news ; more
of the same would make moderation a total joke in uk news.
At least this (and I am not saying that it is ideal) is an idea worth
considering.
People say the committee have no power.
Surely if the users of uk news decided they should have - then it
would happen.
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:58:30 +0000 (UTC), c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com
>wrote:
>
>>I am therefore proposing that the committee should be made formally
>>responsible for the proper administration of moderated groups
>
>Why stop there? I think we should hold them personally responsible for
>the entire content of the uk.* hierarchy, just as Michael Fish was
>responsible for Ye Greatte Storme.
>
>Guy
Why don't you fuck off.
How come you never make an effort to make a sensible contribution.
You are not even funny.
--
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Dick Gaughan
16:14:48 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>In uk.net.news.config, Dick Gaughan <d...@dickgaughan.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>[1] Well, actually, Fluffy owns it but never interferes.
>
>Rather, Fluffy owns it, but has never been observed interfering. Whether
>they do or not is another matter entirely, open to endless debate, so I
>suggest uk.net.news.moderation as a good location to do that.
I thought Fluffy hated moderation?
--
DG
The Happy Hippy
"Carstairs-MacKracken"
<caruthers.carstairs_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote ...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:40:06 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"
> <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote this:
>
>>That's not much different to what the current situation is and gives the
>>Committee the power to not act as they seem to believe should be the case
>>here, but grants the power to do so if they believe otherwise. A failure
>>of
>>Committee to act where it's felt is should be acting can be dealt with by
>
> The present system is not as effective as it should be.
Agreed.
You are up against those who say that the system should not be more
effective, that what there is is effective enough, or that it does not need
to be more effective.
"The present system is not as effective as it *could* be" is perhaps more
correct from other perspectives.
> The present set up does nothing to solve the situation
> where a bunch of zealots have distorted the charter to
> their own ends.
Agreed, it does nothing at all towards solving the situation, nor does it
seem the Committee wants to either resolve the situation of its own accord
nor to have the power to do so of its own accord.
> Also the committee, it seems to me, does little to investigate
> why a moderated news group no longer functions. It could
> be software malfunction, moderators either absent or just
> down right elitist or incompetent. It seems to me that even
> if the OP manages to get what he has suggested the situation
> will improve.
>
> The committee might just create as many problems as the
> present setup. I for one am not impressed, so far, with
> any thing the present bunch have done. (In relation to
> moderated ngs.)
>
> I know I am in the minority. But as all men have ideas and few
> men think then their is every chance that the minority are
> more likely to be "right"!!
I think the idea has merit but in RFD terms could be better expressed and if
you want to get it accepted I believe you will have to grant that the
Committee can choose to not act rather than forcing them to - otherwise they
( and others ) will simply be against such a proposal.
The Committee needs the power to act in order to effectively solve the
situation if it's felt that the Committee should have an ability to solve
such situations.
I do believe the Committe should have such power and the right to apply it,
but also the choice not to. If the Committee do not act as the people wish
them to there's MoNC if necessary.
Bottom line is you are unlikely to get the Committee and others to agree to
the Committee being forced to act forced on them where they either don't
believe they should have that power or have no desire to exercise it. The
best you can do is make it a power to have which does not have to be
exercised and hope / vote for a Committee that has the balls to exercise its
powers when it is appropriate to do so.
Denis McMahon
> crn wrote:
> And I think that's overkill, certainly it needs to be *proved* rather
> than just questioned before it's appropriate to remove the current
> moderators or moderation system.
I think the whole thing can be reduced to:
"If the committee determine (a) that the moderation of a uk.* moderated
group is dysfunctional in a way that prevents the group functioning, and
(b) that there is no other way of restoring the moderation function;
then the committee may appoint temporary volunteer moderators for a
period not exceeding 14 days; such temporary appointment may only be
extended if, within the 14 day period, an RFD to formally change the
group moderation is introduced, and may not in that case extend past the
resolution of such RFD."
Note that in the case of urcm email to moderators, I don't believe that
the email problem "prevents the group functioning".
Obviously in my wording, if the RFD formalises the temporary
arrangement, then the temporary arrangement continues but does so as the
new moderation system as a result of the RFD, rather than by being an
extension of the temporary arrangement.
I do think Charles (because he "owns" the usenet.org.uk domain) should
introduce something to formalise the email addresses used for moderators
and submissions too.
===========================
Moderated Newsgroups
The committee will arrange for email addresses:
<group-name-with-dashes-instead-of-dots>@usenet.org.uk for submissions
to the newsgroup, and
<group-name-with-dashes-instead-of-dots>-req...@usenet.org.uk for
submissions to the newsgroup moderator(s),
To forward mail to the newsgroup submission email address and newsgroup
moderation email address as advised by the moderator(s). It is the
responsibility of the newsgroup moderator(s) to ensure that this email
is correctly handled by their email system.
===========================
Not sure if this should be in the group creation guidelines, the
committee document, or both.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
> crn wrote:
> And I think that's overkill, certainly it needs to be *proved* rather
> than just questioned before it's appropriate to remove the current
> moderators or moderation system.
I think the whole thing can be reduced to:
Denis McMahon
> ... may appoint temporary volunteer moderators ...
Strike "voluntary"
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
Theo Markettos
> However, 48 hours is a generous target _for normal purposes_. It's not
> unreasonable to expect a moderation team to pre-empt holidays and maybe
> draft in temporary moderators for that period. I'd probably add some kind
> of "exceptional circumstances" rider to that, with moderation teams
> expected to account for those circumstances.
>
> Maybe call it 72hrs, though.
Depends how much work the moderators have to do. If it involves a bit of
thought on the part of the moderator to verify if the submission is sensible
and not written by a fruitcake, then that takes longer. I'm thinking of
groups like sci.crypt.research, where sci.crypt is full of fruitcakes and
.research is moderated so as to remove the loopy stuff. Doing that
moderation involves actually understanding the maths of the postings being
made, which isn't necessarily straightforward or quick. Or comp.risks,
which is a weekly digest of interesting postings.
I don't think you can legislate to cover all cases.
Theo
Adrian
sounding much like they were saying:
> I'm thinking of groups like sci.crypt.research
> Or comp.risks
Neither of which are in the uk.* hierarchy, of course.
B'sides, do sci.crypt.research mods actually have to peer-review and
agree the science, or merely verify that the post is sane and vaguely
credible?
Steve Firth
> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > <c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I am therefore proposing that the committee should be made formally
> > > responsible for the proper administration of moderated groups
> >
> > Doesn't get my support and it's yet another mistaken loon thinking that
> > the committee does or should control everything. No way Jos�. The
> > committe regulates it does not and should not control the day to day
> > management of UK Usenet.
> >
> > Even where this policy causes a disservice to be done to users, as in
> > the case of the farce that is urcm, then the principle of management of
> > the hierarchy by the users for the users should prevail. This is an
> > anarchy, those like Jackson who attempt to behave in a way that is in
> > bad faith and pisses on the users shall be nagged to death and
> > un-cooperated into a corner, but not much more.
>
> Why are you jumping to conclusions
I'm not.
> and involving Jackson.
I can involve anyone I wish to involve in a post that I make.
> He is only a minor irritation when compared to the moderators and/or their
> systems who have vanished leaving their groups in a useless state with no
> effective recourse for users.
The users can take over moderation if they wish. It's not a difficult
process.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
>
> I think the idea has merit but in RFD terms could be better expressed and if
> you want to get it accepted I believe you will have to grant that the
> Committee can choose to not act rather than forcing them to - otherwise they
> ( and others ) will simply be against such a proposal.
>
> The Committee needs the power to act in order to effectively solve the
> situation if it's felt that the Committee should have an ability to solve
> such situations.
Hmmmm - we need to be carefull to use the correct combinations of the
magic words MAY SHOULD SHALL MUST etc as per accepted practice.
Let me make myself absolutely clear - in proposing these changes I am
trying to find an acceptable way of solving a problem which clearly
exists and solving it in an acceptable fashion.
Foremost in my thoughts is the fact that a failure of moderation
can kill an otherwise good group stone dead and that prompt intervention
is required before the users vanish.
Others have mentioned a specific problem with uk.rec.cycling.moderated
but this is IMHO a distraction. We need a generic solution to all and
any of the problems which are known to exist in current management
practice for moderated newsgroups.
Hopefully the need for intervention will be rare.
Molly Mockford
in <5ebni51f67rnn4f3h...@4ax.com>:
>URCM has demonstrated admirably how a moderated group can be misused
>and abused Surely the idea of newsgroups is that they are public and
>open to anyone who obeys the established rules.
>
>They are not private clubs run for members only - URCM is.
Can you demonstrate that anybody who tried to post to URCM within "the
established rules" has been prevented from doing so?
(Note: The ability to post to the group is an entirely different matter
from the ability to contact the moderators by traditionally-established
means.)
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
d...@telent.net
> Let me make myself absolutely clear - in proposing these changes I am
> trying to find an acceptable way of solving a problem which clearly
> exists and solving it in an acceptable fashion.
> Foremost in my thoughts is the fact that a failure of moderation
> can kill an otherwise good group stone dead and that prompt intervention
> is required before the users vanish.
Perhaps it would be more convincing to more readers if you were to lay
out some of the rationale instead of taking it as read
1) what actually *is* the problem? give examples
2) why does it need the committe to deal with it summarily, instead of
the group's users by the usual RFD/vote process
Specifically: given that it can take a few months for a new group to be
created, if it goes to vote (I'm guessing a moderated group is very rare
to get FT, unless it's something unusual like an interface to an
existing mailing list), what exactly is the hurry?
-dan
The Happy Hippy
<c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote ...
Absolutely agree on all points. The u.r.c.m debate has simply highlighted a
problem. In the current situation, the Committee agreeing 'yes there is an
issue', the only resolution being for users to whinge until hell freezes
over or IJ changes stance ( while accepting he's not compeed to ) is not
satisfactory if there is a problem which needs rectifying.
The Happy Hippy
".m" <nos...@notnominet.name> wrote ...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:58:30 +0000 (UTC), c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com
> wrote:
>
>> INITIAL PRE_RFD DISCUSSION
>
>
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
>
>
>
> The Committee should NEVER be given such powers.
>
> It's easy to RFD to change the moderators, in the
> case of a group where it's demonstrated that the
> moderators have gone AWOL, this could even be via FT.
>
> DO NOT BELIEVE that giving the Committee ANY such
> powers will make anything better. Believe me, it
> will only make everything, repeat, 'everything' far,
> far WORSE.
>
> Alright, some claim one group is fucked. If it is,
> there are better ways to unfuck it.
>
> PLEASE, no matter how well intentioned, do not
> take this any further.
So, we have your view but no explanation for the rationale behind it; care
to explain further ?
Such as to explain why giving the Committee a power to act ( which it can
choose not to exercise ) to fix a problem that the Committee says needs
fixing is such a bad thing, how it will makes everything far, far worse ?
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>It's easy to RFD to change the moderators, in the
>case of a group where it's demonstrated that the
>moderators have gone AWOL, this could even be via FT.
I don't think we'd even need an RFD if it was clear that the
moderator(s) of a group had disappeared completely, leaving the group
non-functional. Although we've never done it in uk.*, there is an
established procedure in Usenet as a whole (and has been used in Big 8
groups) for a Moderator Vacancy Investigation where a group appears to
have ceased functioning in such circumstances. The usual outcome of an
MVI, assuming that the moderators don't reappear, is for new
volunteers to be found to take over. It only needs to proceed to an
RFD if the decision is to go for deletion instead.
If we need a formal policy on what to do in such cases, then I think
we should model it on the Big 8 policies. Those, essentially, say that
an MVI has to be initiated by a request from users or potential users
of the group who find themselves unable to post to it. That seems to
me to be the most sensible way of doing it; if there aren't enough
people wanting to use the group for even just one of them to complain
that it isn't working then there's not a lot of point the committee
doing it themselves.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
c...@nospam.netunix.com
>
> Perhaps it would be more convincing to more readers if you were to lay
> out some of the rationale instead of taking it as read
>
> 1) what actually *is* the problem? give examples
> 2) why does it need the committe to deal with it summarily, instead of
> the group's users by the usual RFD/vote process
>
> Specifically: given that it can take a few months for a new group to be
> created, if it goes to vote (I'm guessing a moderated group is very rare
> to get FT, unless it's something unusual like an interface to an
> existing mailing list), what exactly is the hurry?
I thought that I made that clear.
If moderation fails, for example when the moderator goes AWOL, it is
an urgent matter to re-enable posting to the group before the users
give up and go away.
This is not about new groups, it is about maintaining service in
existing groups.
The fundamental problem with moderated newsgroups is that they are
totally dependant on both the technical and human mechanisms working
correctly. We do not have a credible mechanism for fixing problems
when things go wrong. If moderation breaks the group is dead and only
prompt intervention can save it.
Graham Drabble
in news:8ioni5t4pt4eh2ivh...@news.markshouse.net:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:15:48 +0000, .m put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>>
>>It's easy to RFD to change the moderators, in the
>>case of a group where it's demonstrated that the
>>moderators have gone AWOL, this could even be via FT.
>
> I don't think we'd even need an RFD if it was clear that the
> moderator(s) of a group had disappeared completely, leaving the
> group non-functional.
I disagree, if moderators aren't around then an RFD seems the easiest
way. Only takes 5 minutes to write a quick RFD, if old mods weren't
around and new ones didn't seem completely loopy I reckon the change
could easily be done in <3 weeks.
--
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/
Graham Drabble
news:hgfqp6$6lh$1...@news.albasani.net:
> There is no clear policy in place for the committee to address
> these issues by intervention, indeed the very nature of the
> moderation process makes it difficult to contact users if
> moderation has failed.
Indeed there isn't a mandate for the committee and there shouldn't be.
The committee is there to oversee the group creation / RFD process, the
users are there to manage the hierarchy. If moderators disappear then
users from the groups should try and contact them and arrange to take
on moderation, no intervention by the committee is required (except for
possibly changing the submission address by altering the usenet.org.uk
forwarding).
If the mdoerators disappear without trace then it is simple to RFD for
a change. Provided new moderators were vaguely sensible I'd expect it
to go through on FT.
> I am therefore proposing that the committee should be made
> formally responsible for the proper administration of moderated
> groups
No way. Far too many of them and far too many views on what is proper.
(indeed far too wide a range of things that are proper depending on the
nature of the group).
> DRAFT PROTOCOL
> b) The committee should monitor activity in moderated newsgroups
> and should initiate action if activity appears to be absent or if
> any complaint is received.
Are you volunteering to keep an eye on all those groups? I'm not.
> c) If a message posted to a group fails to appear within 48 hours
> and no rejection notice is received the moderation shall be deemed
> to be not fit for purpose.
a) 48 hours is way to quick to be a maximum, especially for announce
groups. 1 week would be closer.
b) There's no need for rejects to be sent and given the amount of spam
a submission address can receive (I was at >3000 a day at one point)
and the number of people who use false addresses I'm not sure it is
worth sending.
> d) If an email message addressed to the standard
> *-req...@usenet.org.uk moderators contact address fails to elicit
> a response within 48 hours the moderation shall be deemed to be
> not fit for purpose.
One email is never a way to base anything on, too many possibilities
for it to get lost. Several emails over a 2 week period may be in
order.
Frankly, what we have isn't broken. If someone needs to change
moderators it could happen easily now. All it requires is users to
actually take an interest and make it happen.
I'm guessing this is in response to the urjm problem? Really what was
needed was for the users at the time to do something about the group,
they are the ones that care about it and want to use it.
Graham Drabble
news:7p21ak...@mid.individual.net:
> Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> gurgled
> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> I'm thinking of groups like sci.crypt.research
>> Or comp.risks
>
> Neither of which are in the uk.* hierarchy, of course.
No. However it is worth making sure that any rules cover the full range
of possibilities.
> B'sides, do sci.crypt.research mods actually have to peer-review
> and agree the science, or merely verify that the post is sane and
> vaguely credible?
Not sure about that group for certain but I know it does happen in some
groups.
Rob Morley
Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk> wrote:
> I'm guessing this is in response to the urjm problem? Really what was
> needed was for the users at the time to do something about the group,
> they are the ones that care about it and want to use it.
>
The problem with that approach is that their only contact with each
other may be through the moderated group, and with that medium disabled
there's no way they can organise to fix it.
The Happy Hippy
"Cherry Chapstick" <az...@invalid.really.really> wrote ...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:13:47 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"
> <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Such as to explain why giving the Committee a power to act ( which it can
>>choose not to exercise ) to fix a problem that the Committee says needs
>>fixing is such a bad thing, how it will makes everything far, far worse ?
>
> This RFD as it stands seems to contain within it the seed to act
> retrospectively. That is, it seems to imply that the moderators should
> act on already established groups.
:
> Therefore we can only presume the intent of this RFD is to expand
> moderator powers to currently active moderated groups.
I read it as only applying when a state of failure of moderation arises.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> On 18 Dec 2009 c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote in
> news:hgfqp6$6lh$1...@news.albasani.net:
>
>
> > There is no clear policy in place for the committee to address
> > these issues by intervention, indeed the very nature of the
> > moderation process makes it difficult to contact users if
> > moderation has failed.
>
> Indeed there isn't a mandate for the committee and there shouldn't be.
> The committee is there to oversee the group creation / RFD process, the
> users are there to manage the hierarchy. If moderators disappear then
> users from the groups should try and contact them and arrange to take
> on moderation, no intervention by the committee is required (except for
> possibly changing the submission address by altering the usenet.org.uk
> forwarding).
>
> If the mdoerators disappear without trace then it is simple to RFD for
> a change. Provided new moderators were vaguely sensible I'd expect it
> to go through on FT.
If there is any failure of moderation the ordinary users have no clear
remaining path of mutual communication. Only a tiny proportion of users
realise that unnc exists. In reality the users give up and the group
is dead.
> > I am therefore proposing that the committee should be made
> > formally responsible for the proper administration of moderated
> > groups
>
> No way. Far too many of them and far too many views on what is proper.
> (indeed far too wide a range of things that are proper depending on the
> nature of the group).
This is not an onerous task, the failure rate is not high.
There is no need to fix things that are not broken.
At the moment nobody has a clear mandate to act in the interest of
ordinary users. The committee is the most obvious candidate.
The important principle is that DELEGATION to moderators can be
withdrawn and rapidly replaced with a fix to enable communication
with the users and thus enable a proper transition by discussion
with the users and an RFD if required.
> > DRAFT PROTOCOL
>
> > b) The committee should monitor activity in moderated newsgroups
> > and should initiate action if activity appears to be absent or if
> > any complaint is received.
>
> Are you volunteering to keep an eye on all those groups? I'm not.
It is a fairly simple software task to monitor traffic and detect
abnormal trends by comparison with history.
> > c) If a message posted to a group fails to appear within 48 hours
> > and no rejection notice is received the moderation shall be deemed
> > to be not fit for purpose.
>
> a) 48 hours is way to quick to be a maximum, especially for announce
> groups. 1 week would be closer.
True for low traffic groups such as *.announce.
> b) There's no need for rejects to be sent and given the amount of spam
> a submission address can receive (I was at >3000 a day at one point)
> and the number of people who use false addresses I'm not sure it is
> worth sending.
Most moderation software does this automatically, if users chose to
hide their address they must accept the consequences.
> > d) If an email message addressed to the standard
> > *-req...@usenet.org.uk moderators contact address fails to elicit
> > a response within 48 hours the moderation shall be deemed to be
> > not fit for purpose.
>
> One email is never a way to base anything on, too many possibilities
> for it to get lost. Several emails over a 2 week period may be in
> order.
Fair comment, it depends on the nature of the group as above.
> Frankly, what we have isn't broken. If someone needs to change
> moderators it could happen easily now. All it requires is users to
> actually take an interest and make it happen.
See above, most users have no idea what to do when things go wrong.
> I'm guessing this is in response to the urjm problem? Really what was
> needed was for the users at the time to do something about the group,
> they are the ones that care about it and want to use it.
The problem there is that a substantial proportion of potential users
who are Hotmail etc customers cannot use it and do not know how to
complain that their messages are being dropped on the floor. The
active users are blissfully unaware of the problem.
The urjm problem is only a symptom of a wider problem but it serves as
an illustration of the inadequacies of current practice.
The very nature of moderated newsgroups makes them vulnerable to
catastrophic failure and my proposals are intended to provide a viable
mechanism for improved management.
For example Control could have diverted uk.religion.jewish to a
dummy approve-all system to help Henry in his efforts to revive the group.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> In uk.net.news.config, c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>
> >For example Control could have diverted uk.religion.jewish to a
> >dummy approve-all system to help Henry in his efforts to revive the group.
>
My point is that an RFD should not be necessary, by my proposed
methods Control would have withdrawn delegation of authority from
nobody and fixed this as the default action within hours of being aware.
> Are you offering to setup, maintain and provide a dummy approve-all
> moderation system for use by people if they request it by the way?
My system is not sufficiently reliable for such a 24/7 application
but the task is trivial for a competant perl hacker to molish a script
to insert the necessary headers and forward the message.
Hints on how to do it are free and {R} would probably accept the challenge.
d...@telent.net
> If there is any failure of moderation the ordinary users have no clear
> remaining path of mutual communication. Only a tiny proportion of users
> realise that unnc exists. In reality the users give up and the group
> is dead.
And this is actually the fundamental reason that arrogating more powers
to the committee is a bad idea. If only a tiny proportion of users
realise that unnc (and by implication, the rest of the how
usenet-uk-is-run groups and procedures) exists, and the committee is
elected based on the votes only of that tiny minority, who can say that
it is representative of the wishes of the broader user community?
> At the moment nobody has a clear mandate to act in the interest of
> ordinary users. The committee is ...
... badly placed to do so, given that most of them don't know diddly
about what it is or does
I mean no slight on any current, former or prospective committee
members, either collectively or individually, but it's daft to put them
in a position of representing the interests of a wider user community
who didn't vote for them and mostly don't even know they exist.
-dan
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:01:12 GMT
That's partly what the uk.net.news.* groups are for. Specifically, in
this case, uk.net.news.moderation.
The Happy Hippy
"Cherry Chapstick" <az...@invalid.really.really> wrote ...
> <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>> Therefore we can only presume the intent of this RFD is to expand
>>> moderator powers to currently active moderated groups.
>>
>>I read it as only applying when a state of failure of moderation arises.
>
> - very easy to cross that line over holidays, say.
It's pre-RFD and I'd expect the wording and specific implementation details
to change to match the actual intent as a result of the debate. I don't
believe the intent was that the Committee should jump in to rescue a group
which doesn't need rescuing.
I see it as two parts; giving the Committee the power to act when necessary,
and then defining ( if necessary ) what the conditions are when the
Committee can / should / may act. Personally I feel that should be decided
by the Committee.
I agree, normal, real world issues and delays which arise from time to time
should not be treated automatically as a state of failure of moderation
existing.
Rob Morley
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:27:16 +0000, Rob Morley put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:01:12 GMT
> >Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm guessing this is in response to the urjm problem? Really what
> >> was needed was for the users at the time to do something about the
> >> group, they are the ones that care about it and want to use it.
> >>
> >The problem with that approach is that their only contact with each
> >other may be through the moderated group, and with that medium
> >disabled there's no way they can organise to fix it.
>
> That's partly what the uk.net.news.* groups are for. Specifically, in
> this case, uk.net.news.moderation.
>
But how many "ordinary" users know about unn*?
jms
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>At 16:31:35 on Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jms <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote
>in <5ebni51f67rnn4f3h...@4ax.com>:
>
>>URCM has demonstrated admirably how a moderated group can be misused
>>and abused Surely the idea of newsgroups is that they are public and
>>open to anyone who obeys the established rules.
>>
>>They are not private clubs run for members only - URCM is.
>
>Can you demonstrate that anybody who tried to post to URCM within "the
>established rules" has been prevented from doing so?
>
>(Note: The ability to post to the group is an entirely different matter
>from the ability to contact the moderators by traditionally-established
>means.)
I was not implying that there was a technical restriction.
Some people have their postings restricted to URCM because of who they
are - rather than because of what they say.
Matthew Vernon
> I disagree, if moderators aren't around then an RFD seems the easiest
> way. Only takes 5 minutes to write a quick RFD, if old mods weren't
> around and new ones didn't seem completely loopy I reckon the change
> could easily be done in <3 weeks.
Someone unfamiliar with unn* might find the drafting a bit daunting,
perhaps?
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
jms
wrote:
Precisely - and there appears to be a reluctance to tell them about
such things.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com
> INITIAL PRE_RFD DISCUSSION
I can't see it getting much further.
This looks to me like a bad idea giving other bad ideas a bad name.
Some people may see it as micro management but I'd prefer it if you said
what the actual problem was and how you think it might be solved.
Please correct me if I am wrong but am I right in thinking this is more
about urj than urcm?
>It has become clear that the functioning of various moderated newssgroups
>in the uk hierarchy has been compromised due either to a lack of
>effective moderators or to technical issues.
Way too general.
>There is no clear policy in place for the committee to address these
>issues by intervention, indeed the very nature of the moderation
>process makes it difficult to contact users if moderation has failed.
The Committee aren't babysitters. If you ask them to do something
nicely and it is within their remit and most people agree with you they
will probably do it. Changing their powers isn't going to make anything
happen unless you also change "us" ("us" being the users of uk.* and the
electorate).
>I am therefore proposing that the committee should be made formally
>responsible for the proper administration of moderated groups and that
>whilst responsibility will normally be delegated to volunteers for
>individual groups the ultimate responsibility resides with the
>committee who may take any action deemed necessary for proper
>management and functioning of any moderated group.
I disagree strongly. I think I know what you mean but the way you have
said it makes me say NO.
>DRAFT PROTOCOL
>a) The delegation of moderation responsibility shall at all times be
>subject to the moderation, including both technical and human parts,
>being fit for purpose.
Please give us something specific to talk about. I can't invent a whole
lot of people wanting to talk to each other on usenet and nor can Henry.
>b) The committee should monitor activity in moderated newsgroups and
>should initiate action if activity appears to be absent or if any
>complaint is received.
No. This is plain wrong. Groups belong to users of the group. If the
users don't exist the group fades away and gets a visit from Graham (not
his fault for noticing a group needs Dr Death and he appears agnostic to
me about which groups he visits).
>c) If a message posted to a group fails to appear within 48 hours
>and no rejection notice is received the moderation shall be deemed to
>be not fit for purpose.
No, there are people involved in this, sometimes they sleep, have a
party and go on holiday. Maybe they just want to take a break because
usenet can be dull. To expect someone to be sitting there watching a
screen "just in case you say something really important" is
unreasonable.
>d) If an email message addressed to the standard *-req...@usenet.org.uk
>moderators contact address fails to elicit a response within 48 hours
>the moderation shall be deemed to be not fit for purpose.
Rubbish. That way lies mayhem, think about someone using an address that
cannot be replied to. If your proposal passed the user of an
undeliverable address could get a moderated group kicked, I wouldn't
want that to happen.
>e) Control may divert the moderation addresses to a dummy system which
>approves all messages in order to facilitate further action including
>but not limited to evaluating interest or lack of interest in a group
>prior to removal.
I object to that. Moderators are there for a reason. I don't always
agree with them and vice versa but they are there for a reason, if you
are proposing a system that essentially bypasses moderation, I say NO.
>f) Control may divert the moderation addresses to a moderation system
>which is fit for purpose and appoint interim moderators before calling
>an RFD for the replacement of volunteer moderators if the fitness for
>purpose of an existing delegation is called into question.
No. If this is about a particular group please raise and RFD about
that. I don't think you'll find people unwilling to agree with you
about something specific.
If this is about urj I'm not seeing the support you need. I'm not
saying there aren't jewish people in the uk, I'm just not seeing them
wanting a moderated group.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
The Happy Hippy
"Matthew Vernon" <mat...@debian.org> wrote ...
> Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk> writes:
>
>> I disagree, if moderators aren't around then an RFD seems the easiest
>> way. Only takes 5 minutes to write a quick RFD, if old mods weren't
>> around and new ones didn't seem completely loopy I reckon the change
>> could easily be done in <3 weeks.
>
> Someone unfamiliar with unn* might find the drafting a bit daunting,
> perhaps?
Especially as the only documented guidelines on RFD relate to Group Creation
and it is not entirely clear how such an RFD would be formed for different
issues. "The procedures described above shall be used, with appropriate
changes" is at best vague, leaving the RFD creator having to guess what
"approriate changes" are. Cross out the bits specifically related to Group
Creation which wouldn't apply in other cases, and one's often left with
virtually nothing.
The notion that a "request for discussion" would be the way towards having
action taken would not necessarily be immediately obvious to anyone not
familiar with that tradition. While it's explicitly stated that RFD shall be
the way to achieve some things, it's silent on others, so it's not clear
that an RFD can be used to effect all changes.
Alan LeHun
moderat...@live.co.uk says...
> >> That's partly what the uk.net.news.* groups are for. Specifically, in
> >> this case, uk.net.news.moderation.
> >>
> >But how many "ordinary" users know about unn*?
>
>
> Precisely - and there appears to be a reluctance to tell them about
> such things.
>
Yes. I haven't seen any posts from you in other groups
advertising the management process.
Or maybe it's just a reluctance on your part to consider
yourself part of the management, preferring instead the "us and
them" playground mentality.
--
Alan LeHun
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:22:26 +0000
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:27:16 +0000, Rob Morley put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>> >On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:01:12 GMT
>> >Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm guessing this is in response to the urjm problem? Really what
>> >> was needed was for the users at the time to do something about the
>> >> group, they are the ones that care about it and want to use it.
>> >>
>> >The problem with that approach is that their only contact with each
>> >other may be through the moderated group, and with that medium
>> >disabled there's no way they can organise to fix it.
>>
>> That's partly what the uk.net.news.* groups are for. Specifically, in
>> this case, uk.net.news.moderation.
>>
>But how many "ordinary" users know about unn*?
I don't know. I suspect that those who use "normal" Usenet are more
likely to than those who use Google Groups.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong but am I right in thinking this is more
> about urj than urcm?
>
> >It has become clear that the functioning of various moderated newssgroups
> >in the uk hierarchy has been compromised due either to a lack of
> >effective moderators or to technical issues.
No, it is not about any individual group.
Recent cases have highlighted an underlying problem, they are symptoms
not the cause. Without a clearer policy and someone having the
authority to act the problems will continue.
By moving ultimate authority to Control who delegates that authority
to the duly appointed moderators nothing changes in groups that are
properly run but we have a clear mechanism for fixing problems.
Wm...
<Db6Xm.16880$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com> uk.net.news.config The
Happy Hippy <the.happy....@ntlworld.com>
>The notion that a "request for discussion" would be the way towards having
>action taken would not necessarily be immediately obvious to anyone not
>familiar with that tradition. While it's explicitly stated that RFD shall be
>the way to achieve some things, it's silent on others, so it's not clear
>that an RFD can be used to effect all changes.
I think you'll find someone requesting help is rarely refused it here.
If they ask for help about the wrong thing they might get yelled at but
that doesn't mean they shouldn't ask.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>Precisely - and there appears to be a reluctance to tell them about
>such things.
Please keep up. uk.* didn't like it the last time they were reminded.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com
Other people have said their bit, mine is this: I'd like you to be more
specific about which group. Why? Because I don't see the point in
tarring [1] all uk.* moderated groups because one or two aren't working
exactly as you or I desire.
Should urj be reclaimed? Probably. Do all uk.* moderated groups need
reclamation? Nope.
Try to tell us why urj should be reclaimed, you might be surprised at
the support you get if you are specific.
[1] some may get the joke
The Happy Hippy
"Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote ...
People wouldn't have to ask if it were more clear in the first place.
jms
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:01:06 <akqpi51gdchbkbpe4...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>
>>Precisely - and there appears to be a reluctance to tell them about
>>such things.
>
>Please keep up. uk.* didn't like it the last time they were reminded.
O yes - I have heard that before.
I am sure they did - the only problem is that no-one can point to any
evidence of the wholesale outrage which took place - perhaps you can?
(Talking of keeping up - can you email the evidence that you promised
- or are you determined to remain a dishonourable little turd?)
jms
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>But how many "ordinary" users know about unn*?
>
>I don't know. I suspect that those who use "normal" Usenet are more
>likely to than those who use Google Groups.
>
>Mark
Can you tell me if there are any stats published on news group usage
in the uk - how many posts to particular groups over a period for
example?
Denis McMahon
>> But how many "ordinary" users know about unn*?
>
> Precisely - and there appears to be a reluctance to tell them about
> such things.
You think they should be told, why aren't you out there telling them?
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Victor Meldrew <vic...@gmail.com>
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:58:30 +0000, Molly Mockford
><nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> for members only - URCM is.
>>
>>Can you demonstrate that anybody who tried to post to URCM within "the
>>established rules" has been prevented from doing so?
>>
>>(Note: The ability to post to the group is an entirely different matter
>>from the ability to contact the moderators by traditionally-established
>>means.)
>
>The 'fat slag' witters on and on amd on and ................
Have you put on weight recently, molly?
Wm...
uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:35:46 +0000, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:01:06 <akqpi51gdchbkbpe4...@4ax.com>
>>uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>>
>>>Precisely - and there appears to be a reluctance to tell them about
>>>such things.
>>
>>Please keep up. uk.* didn't like it the last time they were reminded.
>O yes - I have heard that before.
>
>I am sure they did - the only problem is that no-one can point to any
>evidence of the wholesale outrage which took place - perhaps you can?
Your googling skills are notoriously bad. Do your own homework, please.
>(Talking of keeping up - can you email the evidence that you promised
>- or are you determined to remain a dishonourable little turd?)
I sent you an e-mail recently. Perhaps your problem is you don't read
what gets sent to you.
Sara Merriman
Victor Meldrew <vic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:58:30 +0000, Molly Mockford
> <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> for members only - URCM is.
> >
> >Can you demonstrate that anybody who tried to post to URCM within "the
> >established rules" has been prevented from doing so?
> >
> >(Note: The ability to post to the group is an entirely different matter
> >from the ability to contact the moderators by traditionally-established
> >means.)
>
> The 'fat slag' witters on and on amd on and ................
S(he) is a nasty piece of trash, but is very occasionally correct and
this is one of those times.
--
Sara
Cuddler of rats, cats and husband
Geoff Berrow
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> The 'fat slag' witters on and on amd on and ................
>
>S(he) is a nasty piece of trash, but is very occasionally correct and
>this is one of those times.
I suspect you may want to check attributions...
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker
Sara Merriman
Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:04:28 +0000, Sara Merriman
> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> The 'fat slag' witters on and on amd on and ................
> >
> >S(he) is a nasty piece of trash, but is very occasionally correct and
> >this is one of those times.
>
> I suspect you may want to check attributions...
Oh rats! Did I insult and agree with the wrong person? Apologies if
that's so. That's what happens when reading/writing news in the morning
before going out to get teabags.
Wm...
<saramerriman-AD5E...@news.individual.net>
uk.net.news.config Sara Merriman <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>In article <ek4si5lc3cg4sm1pj...@4ax.com>,
> Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:04:28 +0000, Sara Merriman
>> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> The 'fat slag' witters on and on amd on and ................
>> >
>> >S(he) is a nasty piece of trash, but is very occasionally correct and
>> >this is one of those times.
>>
>> I suspect you may want to check attributions...
>
>Oh rats! Did I insult and agree with the wrong person?
I think more people like Molly and dislike Victor who clearly is an
artificial person.
> Apologies if
>that's so. That's what happens when reading/writing news in the morning
>before going out to get teabags.
I don't know if you are interested in, shall we say, advanced sexual
practices but I've heard teabags might mean different things to
different people.
Before jms gets involved I haven't tried it.
Owen Dunn
> Really? I can't see where it says that in the guidelines.
You can raise an RFD to do anything.
(Caution: Control's ability to bring about world peace may not be
available in all groups. Your group is at risk if you do not keep up
payments on any loan secured on it. May contain nuts.)
(S)
jms
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:42:42 <9uaqi5d7h1i1h6nfd...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>
>>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:35:46 +0000, "Wm..."
>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:01:06 <akqpi51gdchbkbpe4...@4ax.com>
>>>uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>>>
>>>>Precisely - and there appears to be a reluctance to tell them about
>>>>such things.
>>>
>>>Please keep up. uk.* didn't like it the last time they were reminded.
>
>>O yes - I have heard that before.
>>
>>I am sure they did - the only problem is that no-one can point to any
>>evidence of the wholesale outrage which took place - perhaps you can?
>
>Your googling skills are notoriously bad. Do your own homework, please.
Hello - Worm - you are a fool.
I have Googled - others have provided references. No one has as yet
provided any evidence of wholesale outrage.
Perhaps, as you have been a faux member of the committee for so long,
you could point them out - after all, there were very many people
outraged.
>>(Talking of keeping up - can you email the evidence that you promised
>>- or are you determined to remain a dishonourable little turd?)
>
>I sent you an e-mail recently. Perhaps your problem is you don't read
>what gets sent to you.
I read that one - it was not the one you had promised. It did not
deserve a response.
Please feel free to honour your side of the agreement.
I am still waiting.
Sara Merriman
"Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
- flat look -
Sara Merriman
Carstairs-MacKracken
<caruthers.carstairs_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:08:46 +0000, Sara Merriman
> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote this:
>
> >Oh rats! Did I insult and agree with the wrong person? Apologies if
> >that's so. That's what happens when reading/writing news in the morning
> >before going out to get teabags.
>
> I should check the contents of your tea bags!! { ; -- ))
>
Checked! Just tea. Ahhhh... tea...
Rex M F Smith
<nos...@ntlworld.com> writes
>how many "ordinary" users know about unn*?
The ordinary users are reading Usenet, but I think most are
reading it on the web :-(
--
Rex M F Smith
Rex M F Smith
Chapstick <az...@invalid.really.really> writes
>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:28:47 GMT, "The Happy Hippy"
><the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>> Therefore we can only presume the intent of this RFD is to expand
>>> moderator powers to currently active moderated groups.
>>
>>I read it as only applying when a state of failure of moderation arises.
>
>The conditions for considering the moderation a failure are very tight
>- very easy to cross that line over holidays, say.
And those holidays ... or religious observances ... vary
e.g. Buddhists and Greek Orthodox have represented to me "no
work within 40 days of a death" ...
Geoff Berrow
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> I don't know if you are interested in, shall we say, advanced sexual
>> practices but I've heard teabags might mean different things to
>> different people.
>
>- flat look -
Teabagging, not teabags. Wm stretches innuendo a little too far
sometimes.
(Wm is now thinking that innuendo is an innuendo...)
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
You made me laugh
kat
Molly Mockford
<use...@gehena.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<NkHAxDKL...@gehena.demon.co.uk>:
> e.g. Buddhists and Greek Orthodox have represented to me "no
>work within 40 days of a death" ...
Given the way that people I know locally are dying, that would pretty
well mean no work getting done for the entire winter :-(
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
John Hall
It wasn't clear to me which of the two you were referring to.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk>
>On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:53:48 +0000, Sara Merriman
><sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I don't know if you are interested in, shall we say, advanced sexual
>>> practices but I've heard teabags might mean different things to
>>> different people.
>>
>>- flat look -
>
>Teabagging, not teabags. Wm stretches innuendo a little too far
>sometimes.
>
>(Wm is now thinking that innuendo is an innuendo...)
Geoff, what are you doing inside my head?
Innuendo is *meant* to be a stretchy thing!
Andrew Mobbs
>3. Matthew responded saying "Err, you can already raise an RFD to make this
>happen in the circumstances described." which I found somewhat ironic
>considering his position on missing information from the uk.* processes
>during the election campaign.
I can only assume that Matthew has already had the official committee
cybernetic implants fitted.
Has anybody else thought that "Control" is a really sinister title?
--
Andrew Mobbs - http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andrewm/
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
>4. As a result, I responded with a deeply witty, cutting and hugely funny
>one liner saying 'Really? I can't see where it says that in the
>guidelines.' (see what I did there?)
If no-one else says they snorted, I did.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Andrew Mobbs <and...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>>3. Matthew responded saying "Err, you can already raise an RFD to make this
>>happen in the circumstances described." which I found somewhat ironic
>>considering his position on missing information from the uk.* processes
>>during the election campaign.
>
>I can only assume that Matthew has already had the official committee
>cybernetic implants fitted.
>
>Has anybody else thought that "Control" is a really sinister title?
[swearwords] I thought the chiarkians would be over their problems once
Matthew got his feet under the table and was offered a biscuit.
Dick Gaughan
+0000 (GMT), Andrew Mobbs <and...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Has anybody else thought that "Control" is a really sinister title?
It is sinister, but it's forbidden to tell you why.
Just don't go anywhere near Dudley on a dark night without an
armed escort.
--
DG
Sara Merriman
John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <saramerriman-AD5E...@news.individual.net>,
> Sara Merriman <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> >In article <ek4si5lc3cg4sm1pj...@4ax.com>,
> > Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:04:28 +0000, Sara Merriman
> >> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> The 'fat slag' witters on and on amd on and ................
> >> >
> >> >S(he) is a nasty piece of trash, but is very occasionally correct and
> >> >this is one of those times.
> >>
> >> I suspect you may want to check attributions...
> >
> >Oh rats! Did I insult and agree with the wrong person? Apologies if
> >that's so. That's what happens when reading/writing news in the morning
> >before going out to get teabags.
> >
>
> It wasn't clear to me which of the two you were referring to.
For the avoidance of doubt, I was referring to jms.
Molly Mockford
wrote in <2vmti5d0bm7i594bg...@4ax.com>:
But that's been standard advice for the last two centuries...
Charles Lindsey
>In uk.net.news.config, c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>>There is no clear policy in place for the committee to address these
>>issues by intervention, indeed the very nature of the moderation
>>process makes it difficult to contact users if moderation has failed.
>I think at most we need something which says,
>"In exceptional circumstances (including but not limited to: complete loss
>of the moderation team, technical issues preventing any moderated posts
>being injected, etc.) it may be necessary to redirect moderated group
>submission addresses to enable a uk.* group to continue working. In those
>cases, any actions shall be proposed in an RFD in accordance with the
>GUIDELINES FOR GROUP CREATION WITHIN THE UK HIERARCHY, insofar
>as they are applicable."
I think the most that you actually need is a power for when things are
clearly totally broken. A moderator who has gone AWOL would clearly come
under that, but not very much else, and certainly not just a failure of
the -request address unless it affected everybody. The suggested RFD could
try to define the circumstances a litle more clearly.
But given that, the only power you actually need is to take some *interim*
action to provide time for a more permanent solution to be found. That
could permit an interim bot which automatically approved everything, or
the appointment of an interim moderator. That would at least allow the
future of the group to be discussed on the group itself where the people
affected cold become aware of what needed doing.
But unless the interim arrangements were shortly followed by an RFD to
regularise the situation (e.g. to appoint a new moderator, or to change
the charter, or to remove the group, then the interim arrangement should
lapse after seme "reasonable" period, probably followed by an automatic
removal of the group.
Note that if a volunteer moderator appeared, he might then be appointed as
the intermim moderator so as to get things moving (e.g. we might do that
for Henry and urj if that seemed reasonable), but you would still need an
eventual RFD to confirm it.
The only other things that seems to be needed is an RFD to declare what
the official submission/contact addresses are to be, and what level of
failure of those addresses could be considered tolerable. But that is
probably a separate RFD to this one.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5