ANOTHER CALL FOR DISCUSSION - for news.groups.d
Yaakov Kayman
discussion of newsgroups, their creation, purpose and, according to some,
deletion, what's the point of dedicating yet more bandwidth to a group
which would duplicate this function? Why bother people to read yet
another newsgroup which contains nothing new?
Furthermore, why moderate news.groups? To restrict people to creating
only "politically correct" newsgroups?
Finally, as for childish, inane or thoroughly inappropriate postings,
maybe now is a good time to create a mainline hierarchy ("talk."?)
flame group to provide an outlet for all those so inclined at sites
that don't wish to carry the "alt." hierarchy. On the other hand,
perhaps the (prospective?) posters of these inanities should be
directed to the already existing talk.bizarre.
Yaakov K., OPPOSED to news.groups.d
--------
Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York
BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock
Internet: YZ...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU about whom the wolves complain"
Rich McAllister
>As one of the functions of news.groups is to serve as a forum for
>discussion of newsgroups, their creation, purpose and, according to some,
>deletion, what's the point of dedicating yet more bandwidth to a group
>which would duplicate this function? Why bother people to read yet
>another newsgroup which contains nothing new?
Is this proposal really this hard to understand? Currently, news.groups
contains calls for discussions, the resulting discussions, calls for votes,
the results of votes, and tons of irrelevant flames about political theory
and constitutional rights. The proposed split would move the discussions
and flames to news.groups.d, keeping the rest in news.groups. No
duplication. If you continuously subscribe to both news.groups and
news.groups.d, you will see no real difference. However, if you *don't*
subscribe to news.groups because of the noise level, you could subscribe to
the new, moderated one and join news.groups.d only after a call for
discussion that you're interested in, unsubscribing after the discussion has
ended and you've voted.
>Furthermore, why moderate news.groups? To restrict people to creating
>only "politically correct" newsgroups?
No, just to restrict the postings to be calls for discussion, calls for
votes, and vote results. If the moderator were to reject any posting
in this categories, I'm sure we would immediately hear of it in
news.groups.d, not to mention alt.flame...
ken streeter
|
|What we wish to accomplish is the splitting up of the NOTICE function,
|and the DISCUSSION function of news.groups. That is:
|
|news.groups contains CALLS FOR VOTES
| CALLS FOR DISCUSSION
| VOTE RESULTS
| CALLS FOR DELETION
|news.groups.d contains DISCUSSION of the above
|
| ...!uunet!phavl!rob Robert Ransbottom
I agree wholeheartedly with the separation of notices and discussion.
An problem that I have with the current setup of news.groups is that
I often miss CALLS FOR VOTES because they are buried among dozens of
discussion postings. I have often had to "guess" at who was counting
votes for a proposal by looking at discussion articles which followup
to the initial call for votes.
The moderator's job would not be to determine "usefulness" of a group,
simply to weed out any postings which are not as Robert outlined above.
An additional benefit of the moderator (assuming a knowledgable one)
could be to try to "catch" a forged article, as we saw happen recently
with the 'personals' vote. The moderator could take the time (once, for
the benefit of the whole net) to be wary of forged postings.
Any volunteers for a moderator if the vote passes?
Kenneth B. Streeter | ARPA: stre...@crd.ge.com
General Electric Corporate R&D | UUCP: ...!uunet!crd.ge.com!streeter
Bldg K1, Room 3C9 | MIT : one...@athena.mit.edu
Schenectady, NY 12345 | (518) 387-5052 (GE 8AM - 5PM)
Robert Ransbottom
> As one of the functions of news.groups is to serve as a forum for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
my point!
> discussion of newsgroups, their creation, purpose and, according to some,
> deletion, what's the point of dedicating yet more bandwidth to a group
now you're listing ALL of the functions
> which would duplicate this function? Why bother people to read yet
> another newsgroup which contains nothing new?
What we wish to accomplish is the splitting up of the NOTICE function,
and the DISCUSSION function of news.groups. That is:
news.groups contains CALLS FOR VOTES
CALLS FOR DISCUSSION
VOTE RESULTS
CALLS FOR DELETION
news.groups.d contains DISCUSSION of the above
The main point is not to create yet another news-group, but to make
the notices easily accessable.
> Furthermore, why moderate news.groups? To restrict people to creating
> only "politically correct" newsgroups?
I did not propose the moderation of news.groups, though I think it is
a good idea w/ a news.groups.d. The moderator would not reject CALLS
just chatter/follow-ups. If a moderator censored things like
rec.frisbee or rec.pipes (smoking) (both were poorly recieved and well
flamed proposals) he probably would not last.
> Yaakov K., OPPOSED to news.groups.d
Would like to know why you're OPPOSED.
--
...!uunet!phavl!rob Robert Ransbottom
Greg Woods
>Furthermore, why moderate news.groups? To restrict people to creating
>only "politically correct" newsgroups?
No one has EVER said that! What the point is is to allow those who just want
to keep track of what new groups are being proposed and to vote on those
they like to be able to do so, without having to wade through many flames
(typically generated by one controversial topic, so that other proposals
go unnoticed under the deluge). The moderators job would NOT be to decide
on the merit of a proposal; just to ensure that only new group proposals,
calls for votes, and results of votes are posted in news.groups (the minumum
things that the newsgroup creation guidelines REQUIRE to be posted there).
No one's voice would go unheard; that is why the proposal to moderate
news.groups includes creation of an UNmoderated news.groups.d, to hold the
discussions and flame wars. The same content we have always seen in news.groups
would STILL be there; it would just divide the discussions and flames from
calls for discussion, calls for votes, and results of votes.
--Greg
William Davidsen
| discussion of newsgroups, their creation, purpose and, according to some,
| deletion, what's the point of dedicating yet more bandwidth to a group
| which would duplicate this function? Why bother people to read yet
| another newsgroup which contains nothing new?
The major function of another group would be to absorb the discussions
(and flames) other than related to creation of newsgroups. One topic is
that of new policy for creation of groups... it clutters up the group to
the point of obscuring the group discussions. Note that the discussion
is necessary, but perhaps would be more readable in another group.
Another possible division of this group:
news.groups: (moderated)
call for discussion
call for votes
results of votes
posting changes of moderators
posting new mailing lists
news.groups.d:
discussion of group creation/deletion
selection of vote takers, if needed
news.groups.policy:
rights issues
rules for group creation/deletion
Re: a moderator
Although Greg and I see group creation *very* differently, I think he
would be an acceptable moderator. He obviously reads every byte of this
group anyway, so it shouldn't be much of a chance. However, there should
be a backup moderator, since this group really shouldn't break for
vacations, etc. I would favor partitioning the group first, and adding
moderation if it is needed.
bill davidsen (davi...@crdos1.crd.GE.COM)
{uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
Richard Sexton
Oh no. (That header above is bitnetese for Nelson Broat) Not this
again. How do we know this is REALLY Nelson Broat.
>I would like to see GREG WOODS as the moderator of NEWS.GROUPS if the
>vote for news.groups.d passes.
Why stop there ? Why not have him moderate THE WHOLE NET. I mean,
you checked with him first, right ? And he has the time and energy,
right ?
>What do you say Greg? And how do the rest of you feel about all of this?
We think you've been watching too much Star Trek.
--
``The who's who of Milwaukee only eats Ugandan pineapples''
ric...@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!ric...@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
Robert Ransbottom
> In article <107...@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> rfm@urth (Rich McAllister) writes:
> >
> > However, if you *don't*
> >subscribe to news.groups because of the noise level, you could subscribe to
> >the new, moderated one and join news.groups.d only after a call for
> >discussion that you're interested in, unsubscribing after the discussion has
> >ended and you've voted.
>
Richard, wonderful idea! Don't stop there! Let's just have
one newsgroup: "news" ( I suppose there will be reactionaries
that'll want to call it "general").
Seriously, massaging poorly structured data in this environment (the net) is
far inferior to have a good structure to start with.
A personal view and to each their own:
If I do not see all the messages in a group, I religiously treat that
newsgroup as READONLY. Otherwise I may be wasting bandwidth via a couple of
mechanisms.
Also I am trying to fool myself that the newsgroup is not as noisy as it is.
In addition, I feel it is rude. If I won't listen/talk to ZYX I
wouldn't participate in a verbal discussion group, its unworkable. I
apply the same to newsgroups.
Germane note: This subject is under two headings now.
--
news.groups SMALL for ALL -- Support new.groups.d, only CALLS & RESULTS in n.g
( sloganizing is making me feel ill)
...!uunet!phavl!rob Robert Ransbottom
Richard Sexton
>subscribe to news.groups because of the noise level, you could subscribe to
>the new, moderated one and join news.groups.d only after a call for
>discussion that you're interested in, unsubscribing after the discussion has
>ended and you've voted.
Your ``='' key is broken ?
--
Richard Sexton
>In article <16...@gryphon.COM> ric...@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
>>In article <107...@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> rfm@urth (Rich McAllister) writes:
>>>
>>> However, if you *don't*
>>>subscribe to news.groups because of the noise level, you could subscribe to
>>>the new, moderated one and join news.groups.d only after a call for
>>>discussion that you're interested in, unsubscribing after the discussion has
>>>ended and you've voted.
>>
>>Your ``='' key is broken ?
>
>upon using news.groups as a forum to insult people publically instead of
>using email, I might agree with you. Me, I *do* use my "=" key, and
>this group is still a damned pain to keep track of.
Perhaps, but this was not an insult. It was a genuine suggestion. The
reason I posted it rather than mailed it, was, I wanted to get some
feedback as to whether people thought this was a viable way to
wade through news.groups. *I* think it is, and have no trouble
keeping up with stuff.
>Of course, if there were more people like you and me, who read news.groups
>just to find someone worth insulting, I'd also agree with you.
I find no reason to insult you, Bill.
> I'm the NRA
Until now.
Tim J Ihde
>As meta-discussions are usually altogether inappropriate, and flames
>already have their own "dev/null" destination, alt.flame (or, for the
>more "creative," talk.bizarre), where people may vent their spleens or
>frustrations all they want, why devote yet more bandwidth to the already
>inappropriate or the redundant? People *do* have the option of *ignoring*
>garbage! When inanity is ignored, it fizzles out.
Ah, but by the time it has fizzled, another inanity has arisen to take
its place. By the time soc.personals fades away, soc.feminism appears.
It may even be possible that one discussion fades only *because* another
appears. (Please, I'm not attacking either of these issues, just some
of the directions the discussions took.)
We are not talking about a new group for new bandwidth. I don't see
why this change would effect bandwidth at all. We are only discussing
the possibility of re-directing some of the postings elsewhere
where it will be easily accessible to those who want to see it.
The remainder will be easily accessible to those who want to see that.
More importantly, those who want to see one but not the other will be
able to do so easily no matter what newsreader they use.
Segregation, not censorship.
How about if when the moderator of news.groups rejects a message, it
is automatically submitted to news.groups.d? Is this easily doable?
On the other hand, if the poster is not willing to repost a rejected
article to the correct newsgroup then perhaps it wasn't worth posting
in the first place.
By the way, I have no problem with Greg Woods as moderator -- but does Greg?
>Yaakov K., *STILL* opposed to news.groups.d
--
Tim J Ihde INTERNET: t...@attdso.att.com
(201) 898-6687 UUCP: att!attdso!tim
Robert Ransbottom
One person's phlame is another's point. We won't eliminate flames.
> Another possible division of this group:
> news.groups: (moderated)
> call for discussion > call for votes
> results of votes > posting changes of moderators
> posting new mailing lists
> news.groups.d:
> discussion of group creation/deletion
> selection of vote takers, if needed
> news.groups.policy:
> rights issues
> rules for group creation/deletion
news.groups stands in stature with news.announce.important
I hope you will not lobby for news.groups.policy, the waters are
muddying already with the vast complexity of this proposal :)
I empathize w/ you, but "rules for group create/delete" belongs
in news.groups[.d] as it deserves the visibility. Also consider
that it would impact on your systems "LIBDIR/newsgroups" file and is
therefore appropriate.
> vacations, etc. I would favor partitioning the group first, and adding
> moderation if it is needed.
This was the intent of my Call, not that I see a need for a delay in
making n.g moderated after a n.g.d is made. But just to simplify the
proposal.
Yaakov Kayman
the - inappropriate - meta-discussions and flames from news.groups and
place them in n.g.D, with a moderated news.groups to be used solely for
calls for/discussions and votes.
It has been further suggested that there is so much useless verbiage in
news.groups that would-be subscribers are discouraged.
As meta-discussions are usually altogether inappropriate, and flames
already have their own "dev/null" destination, alt.flame (or, for the
more "creative," talk.bizarre), where people may vent their spleens or
frustrations all they want, why devote yet more bandwidth to the already
inappropriate or the redundant? People *do* have the option of *ignoring*
garbage! When inanity is ignored, it fizzles out.
To those wishing to know why I oppose the creation of news.groups.d and
the concurrent moderation of news.groups, my reasons are that the new
group is, IMHO, superfluous, or worse, encourages the proliferation of
garbage, and the moderation of the existing group is intellectually
stultifying.
Calls for discussion, even with the resultant bickering, do belong in
an unmoderated news.groups, as differences of opinion are what meaningful
discussion is all about.
Yaakov K., *STILL* opposed to news.groups.d
Brad Templeton
pointless discussion in news.groups might very well be using our
k keys (as an automatic reflex) on the discussion about news.groups.d!
I almost did. I said, "oh, no, another long discussion." Then I realized
that it was a discussion about how to get rid of same...
--
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
Robert Ransbottom
I thank you for your follow-up -- and I'm still going to argue w/ you.
> It has been suggested that the creation of news.groups.d would remove
> the - inappropriate - meta-discussions and flames from news.groups and
> place them in n.g.D, with a moderated news.groups to be used solely for
> calls for/discussions and votes.
> It has been further suggested that there is so much useless verbiage in
> news.groups that would-be subscribers are discouraged.
This is not the main thrust of the proposal.
My highly PERSONAL definition of "useless verbiage" in n.g includes
all the disscussion re:
soc.feminism sci.earth soc.culture.nordic rec.arts.tv.uk
sci.commtech talk.politics.guns
etc. etc. etc.
> As meta-discussions are usually altogether inappropriate, and flames
Literature which tries to give netiquette guidelines
(e.g. _Unix_Communications_ ) indicate that meta-discussions of groups
should be in news.groups. I'd say that that applies to news.groups,
less awkward than having n.g.meta, n.g.meta.meta, n.g.meta.meta.meta, ...
> already have their own "dev/null" destination, alt.flame (or, for the
> more "creative," talk.bizarre), where people may vent their spleens or
> frustrations all they want, why devote yet more bandwidth to the already
> inappropriate or the redundant? People *do* have the option of *ignoring*
> garbage! When inanity is ignored, it fizzles out.
It's easier to ignore if it's in a separate group. Don't you think there
are a thousand+ readers who wish you ignored me, and vice-versa. But
you and I share some concern for this issue.
> To those wishing to know why I oppose the creation of news.groups.d and
> the concurrent moderation of news.groups, my reasons are that the new
> group is, IMHO, superfluous,
The superfluidity is already there, we just wish to divide it into
two groups.
> or worse, encourages the proliferation of
> garbage, and the moderation of the existing group is intellectually
> stultifying.
Surprisingly, no-one has brought up the point that:
If following up to a CALL is to another group, it will be more
difficult for a fair number of news readers ( based on inerface program)
to join the discussion. One can argue that this is a bad /stultifying/
thing. But that it is nearly in parity with the effort to VOTE, makes the
argument silly.
> Calls for discussion, even with the resultant bickering, do belong in
> an unmoderated news.groups, as differences of opinion are what meaningful
> discussion is all about.
How is the proposal inhibiting meaningful discussion? The intent is
to make n.g more accessable to the readership at large ( and myself in
particular, I follow n.g as a duty).
> Yaakov K., *STILL* opposed to news.groups.d
STILL not sure what you base your humble opinion on.
David C Lawrence
would duplicate this function"; it is moving the bandwidth to a place
where the people who are interested in it while those who are not
don't have to wade through it while looking for calls for discussion
and votes.
I think a moderated news.groups which only had the announcements is a
great solution to the traffic. An informal poll at my site has
revealed many readers who would read news.groups, and hence know what
was happening as far as newsgroup proposals went, if it were to remove
the discussion traffic. I read news.groups for the announcements and
votes -- the discussion is tiresome and kill files are not the only
solution, especially since sometimes someone will make the call for
votes for a group a follow-up to a call for discussion posting!
How is my kill file supposed to be smart enought to handle all of
these situations?
Nothing is wasted by the creation of news.groups.d but another entry
in the namespace. A lot is gained from it.
> Yaakov K., OPPOSED to news.groups.d
David L., IN FAVOUR of news.groups.d
--
(setq mail '("ta...@pawl.rpi.edu" "ta...@itsgw.rpi.edu" "ta...@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
William B. Thacker
>>
>> However, if you *don't*
>>subscribe to news.groups because of the noise level, you could subscribe to
>>the new, moderated one and join news.groups.d only after a call for
>>discussion that you're interested in, unsubscribing after the discussion has
>>ended and you've voted.
>
>Your ``='' key is broken ?
Well, Richard, if there were fewer people like you and me, who insist
upon using news.groups as a forum to insult people publically instead of
using email, I might agree with you. Me, I *do* use my "=" key, and
this group is still a damned pain to keep track of.
Of course, if there were more people like you and me, who read news.groups
just to find someone worth insulting, I'd also agree with you.
Me, I'm in favor of news.groups.d, or whatever they want to call it.
------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker w...@cbnews.att.com
I'm the NRA
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------
Flash Sheridan
>In article <2...@phavl.UUCP> r...@phavl.UUCP (Robert Ransbottom) writes:
>
>
>The moderator's job would not be to determine "usefulness" of a group,
>simply to weed out any postings which are not as Robert outlined above.
I'll buy this, but to allay fears previously expressed, I think it should be
written into his charter in big letters that that's all he's allowed to
weed. It's the Net's job to weed out frivolous and evil groups, not his.
--
---
From: fl...@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan)
Reply-To: sher...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Portal,MacNet: FlashsMom
Matt Crawford
) You people are forgetting something. You have to give the moderator
) some incentive. A moderator has to do some creative work in putting
) a group together or nobody's likely to volunteer for the job!
A typical Bradism. Brad, *some* people are happy just to help out
without needing their ego stroked or the wallet fattened.
________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Charlie Geyer
In article <34...@looking.on.ca> br...@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
> You people are forgetting something. You have to give the moderator
> some incentive. A moderator has to do some creative work in putting
> a group together or nobody's likely to volunteer for the job!
If people are really serious about this moderated news.groups, the
proper job for the moderator is to serve as a copy editor and help the
proposer of a new group put his or her proposal in decent form.
Many (most?) proposals contain obvious flaws that only cause trouble
for the proposal and aren't even important to the authors. A
moderator who would put proposals in decent shape without doing
violence to their spirit would do everyone a service.
Disclaimer: I said "copy editor." I don't mean that the moderator
gets to say thumbs up or thumbs down.
Chip Salzenberg
>You people are forgetting something. You have to give the moderator
>some incentive. A moderator has to do some creative work in putting
>a group together or nobody's likely to volunteer for the job!
How about the satifaction of doing a good deed for the net community?
Nah. It'll never work -- there's no money in it.
(By the way, Brad, I love all those jokes from GEnie.)
--
Chip Salzenberg <ch...@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip>
A T Engineering Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
"It's no good. They're tapping the lines."
Robert Ransbottom
That the moderator has no discretion regarding the calls is
basic to the proposal.
I don't see this as something to get paranoid about.
Brad Templeton
>In article <5...@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> stre...@lansoar.crd.ge.com (ken streeter) writes:
>>The moderator's job would not be to determine "usefulness" of a group,
>>simply to weed out any postings which are not as Robert outlined above.
>
>I'll buy this, but to allay fears previously expressed, I think it should be
>written into his charter in big letters that that's all he's allowed to
>weed. It's the Net's job to weed out frivolous and evil groups, not his.
You people are forgetting something. You have to give the moderator
some incentive. A moderator has to do some creative work in putting
a group together or nobody's likely to volunteer for the job!
David C Lawrence
Brad> You people are forgetting something. You have to give the moderator
Brad> some incentive. A moderator has to do some creative work in putting
Brad> a group together or nobody's likely to volunteer for the job!
The incentive, of course, is that this it is entirely useful for a
large number of people on the net not to have to wade through the
discussion in news.groups just to see what is up for discussion or
voting. Maybe that isn't enough incentive for you (and maybe even
Greg), but it is for other people, including me.
Dave
Aydin Edguer
opening of discussion periods, and call for votes for the creation or
deletion of groups, and the results of said votes is a reasonable one.
However, I have problems with the newsgroup news.groups.d.
What is wrong with the idea of news.groups.d?
#1) It is creating a new newsgroup to move the old traffic to,
while changing the old newsgroup to a new purpose.
I think the proper way is to create a new newsgroup for the
new purpose (announcements) and leave the old newsgroup for
the old purpose (discussions).
I think this would be less confusing.
#2) I dislike the existence of news hierarchies within active
groups. I think newsgroups should always be leafs within
the news hierarchy. I realize that there are numerous examples
already out there but I would rather not create a new one.
Examples: comp.lsi/comp.lsi.cad,
comp.periphs/comp.periphs.printers
comp.unix/comp.unix.*
The reason I am against this is that I think it is more
difficult in the sys file to delimit what should be passed on.
Example: The only way to pass on comp.unix but not comp.unix.*
is to add a comp.unix,!comp.unix.all to the sys file.
My counter proposal is to create a new moderated newsgroup specifically
for the announcements concerning newsgroups. This newsgroup would be
news.announce.groups
I think it should be moderated by the individual "officially" [as much
as anything is official around here] who is in charge of making sure that
the new group guidelines are followed. This will help to insure that the
simple guidelines concerning 2 week discussions, 30 day votes, and 5 day
validation periods are carried out. The purpose of the moderator would,
of course, be only to weed out non-announcements and insure that announcements
follow the simple guidelines posted in news.announce.newusers.
To help be more concrete, here are some examples:
#1) His job WOULD NOT BE to censor the posting for a CALL FOR DISCUSSION
for comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac
#2) His job WOULD BE to wait for the 49 days of discussion/votes/
validation before creating comp.sys.next.
All postings to news.announce.groups would still be crossposted [by the
moderator] to all groups which might have an interest in the creation/
deletion/change of a newsgroup.
All followups to articles posted to news.announce.groups would be directed
to news.groups.
Currently, the above means I would nominate Greg Woods as moderator.
If he feels it is better handled by another individual, then I am prepared
to accept his judgement and we can attempt to find another interested
individual.
Aydin Edguer +1 216 368 6123 edg...@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
Department of Computer Engineering, Crawford Hall, Case Western Reserve Univ.
Aydin Edguer +1 216 368 6123 edg...@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
Department of Computer Engineering, Crawford Hall, Case Western Reserve Univ.
Brad Templeton
you might as well find somebody who is willing to set up voting
aliases on their machine -- I'll volunteer the awk scripts to count
the vote -- and just have all votes in one central place.
That would eliminate all the questions of vote tallies and cheating
and etc.
The Cat in the Hat
-
-You people are forgetting something. You have to give the moderator
-some incentive. A moderator has to do some creative work in putting
-a group together or nobody's likely to volunteer for the job!
What?
You mean there are people out there who'd need more than just the sheer joy
of flaming someone who sent an incorrect article to be posted?
If we don't limit how nasty the moderator can be in rejecting articles, I'd
be Sexton would have a fun time doing it.
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: dav...@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
"I'd like to remind you that when you're too well-entertained to move,
screaming is good exercise."
- World Entertainment War
Norman S. Soley
:(Flash Sheridan) writes:
:> stre...@lansoar.crd.ge.com (ken streeter) writes:
:>>The moderator's job would not be to determine "usefulness" of a group,
:>>simply to weed out any postings which are not as Robert outlined above.
:>
:>I'll buy this, but to allay fears previously expressed, I think it should be
:>written into his charter in big letters that that's all he's allowed to
:>weed. It's the Net's job to weed out frivolous and evil groups, not his.
:
:You people are forgetting something. You have to give the moderator
:some incentive. A moderator has to do some creative work in putting
:a group together or nobody's likely to volunteer for the job!
So there's no gratification to be had in doing something, however 'boring'
it may be, that one believes is for the greater good of a community that
one is part of?
"Creativity" is not the only motivation that drives people to do what we
do.
--
Norman Soley - The Communications Guy - Ontario Ministry of the Environment
so...@moegate.UUCP or if you roll your own: uunet!attcan!ncrcan!moegate!soley
The Minister speaks for the Ministry, I speak for myself. Got that! Good.
Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want
Greg Woods
>you might as well find somebody who is willing to set up voting
>aliases on their machine -- I'll volunteer the awk scripts to count
>the vote -- and just have all votes in one central place.
>
>That would eliminate all the questions of vote tallies and cheating
>and etc.
No, it wouldn't. This would only guard against fraud by the VOTE-TAKER.
But we all know mail messages can be forged. There is no way to verify that
there aren't forged votes other than to post the names of all the voters to
the net after the vote. If several people are surprised to see their names
on the list, then we know forgery has probably occurred. With awk scripts
counting the votes there is no way to detect forgery.
--Greg
Brad Templeton
>You mean there are people out there who'd need more than just the sheer joy
>of flaming someone who sent an incorrect article to be posted?
The point of what I said has been missed. Of course there can be guidelines
on the way a moderated group is conducted. But people here were posting
guidelines suggesting the moderator should be some sort of automaton. The
real answer is somewhere in between. While a news.groups moderator might
be a bit of a special case, in general you must remember that moderators
are providing a service, not doing a "duty."
In this case, I might suggest that the moderator for a newsgroup announcement
group (I'm not volunteering, you think I'm crazy?) have the ability to
provide initial rejection to obviously incorrect postings, with reasons. If
the submitter still wishes to go ahead with the group, the moderator should
then let the proposal through.
So in the case of say "talk.activism.animal-rights" the moderator might
respond, (This is just an example)
"While that's a valid and lively topic, the net is not a very
efficient way of providing communications for small special
interest groups. Realize there are 15,000 machines out there,
but there might only be a few hundred animal rights activists.
It wouldn't be fair to send messages to 15,000 machines for 200
people to read them -- it would waste a lot of resources. People,
in my opinion, would be upset to have their machine supporting
an activist cause they may or may not agree with when nobody in
their area even reads the group. I suggest a mailing list or
an alt group. If you insist, I will put your proposal to the net
but it is my educated guess that it will not gain enough support."
Now if the proposer is really keen they'll go on and insist, but we would
get a level of sanity check. This would be a valuable job worth doing and
worth doing well.
David C Lawrence
>If you're going to have a moderator to oversee group creation, then
>you might as well find somebody who is willing to set up voting
>aliases on their machine -- I'll volunteer the awk scripts to count
>the vote -- and just have all votes in one central place.
In article <33...@ncar.ucar.edu> wo...@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
> No, it wouldn't. This would only guard against fraud by the VOTE-TAKER.
> But we all know mail messages can be forged. There is no way to verify that
> there aren't forged votes other than to post the names of all the voters to
> the net after the vote. If several people are surprised to see their names
> on the list, then we know forgery has probably occurred. With awk scripts
> counting the votes there is no way to detect forgery.
There is if said awk script will also output the list of voters. I
think Brad has made a good offer and as long as he is willing to also
post the names of the voters (I don't see why he shouldn't be) I would
suggest that we take him up on it and let him set up the
mechanizations for vote taking and confirmation (including replies to
those who voted).
By the way, my inclination has also moved from the news.groups{.d}
proposal to leaving news.groups alone but making a new
news.announce.groups (this is the name out of a couple that I see as
fitting in the existing hierarchy best).
Basically:
* news.announce.groups for proposals and vote summaries; Greg Woods
would moderate and Brad Templeton would handle voting. Brad would
mail vote results to Greg for posting.
* news.groups for discussion. Postings which Greg made to
news.groups would have both From: and Reply-to: lines of the
person making the posting (as is done in many moderated groups
now) and include "Followup-to: news.groups" to assist in putting
the discussion for proposals in the right place.
Even though I still prefer .d on the basis of tradition and my own
personal feelings, I think the technical complications of getting the
transition to be somewhat smooth prohibits it. Also, most people seem
to have given up on the first one. :-)
Greg Woods
>> With awk scripts
>> counting the votes there is no way to detect forgery.
>
>There is if said awk script will also output the list of voters. I
>think Brad has made a good offer and as long as he is willing to also
>post the names of the voters
I think Brad offered to WRITE the scripts, not run them on his machine.
I don't have any problem with awk scripts being used to count votes, but I
think it introduces unnecessary complications to the voting process to
REQUIRE that this be done for every vote. I'd like to see us resolve the
news.groups question FIRST, THEN worry about improving the voting process.
They are two separate issues.
If we do set up awk script counting at some later time, it should be done
on a machine on the Internet (which Brad's is not). I realize the Internet
isn't the whole world, but it is the center of it.
--Greg
James 'Kibo' Parry
Why not create news.groups.d.d, so that we'll have a place to discuss
news.groups.d's creation?
Or better yet, let's create news.groups.d.d.d so that I can repost
the above, there...
james "kibo" parry /// All colors are arbitrary...
kibo%pawl.r...@itsgw.rpi.edu (internet)
userfe0n@rpitsmts (bitnet) /// Anything I say represents the opinion of
kibo%mts.r...@itsgw.rpi.edu /// myself and not this computer.
Charlie Geyer
In article <3...@amrap.CWRU.Edu> edg...@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
writes in response to a proposal that the moderator of the proposed
news.announce.groups (or whatever the name is) be given the charge of
suggesting to proposers of new groups that some of the proposals are
simply inappropriate and most unlikely to get enough votes to be
created.
> I do not feel that the moderator should be given this much responsibility.
> I can understand your desire to reduce the number of ill-conceived or not
> well thought-out proposals, to increase the response of feedback for the
> users who propose groups, and generally help clear up SOME clutter, but I
> disagree with your proposed method.
How much responsibility? That the moderator try, politely, to suggest
that to the proposer that all (or perhaps part) of the proposal doesn't
make sense?
So if the proposer sees the light he or she is saved embarrassment and
frustration. And if not one or two e-mail messages are wasted and the
proposal goes on anyway.
What's the problem?
Aydin Edguer
>respond, (This is just an example)
> "While that's a valid and lively topic, the net is not a very
> efficient way of providing communications for small special
> interest groups.
I am sorry, but I disagree. I feel that such a note should not be the job
of the moderator. This is the purpose of the discussion period, to determine
the validity of a newsgroup before a vote is called.
The purpose of the discussion may include:
1) Do individuals feel that there has been in-/sufficient traffic about
the subject to destroy/create a newsgroup? Should a mailing list be used
for now?
2) Is the subject already carried by another [low-volume] newsgroup?
3) Does the name proposed fit well into the naming hierarchy?
4) Is there sufficient interest to begin a vote?
5) Should a group be unmoderated, moderated, digested, undigested, rot-13'ed,
or encrypted?
I do not feel that the moderator should be given this much responsibility.
I can understand your desire to reduce the number of ill-conceived or not
well thought-out proposals, to increase the response of feedback for the
users who propose groups, and generally help clear up SOME clutter, but I
disagree with your proposed method.
Aydin Edguer +1 216 368 6123 edg...@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
Richard Sexton
>> In article <107...@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> rfm@urth (Rich McAllister) writes:
>> >
>> > However, if you *don't*
>> >subscribe to news.groups because of the noise level, you could subscribe to
>> >the new, moderated one and join news.groups.d only after a call for
>> >discussion that you're interested in, unsubscribing after the discussion has
>> >ended and you've voted.
>>
>> Your ``='' key is broken ?
>
>one newsgroup: "news"
Ok, your ``='' key and your brain is broken.
I somehow manage to read all of news.groups, and several other
high volume groups that I have a passing intrest in. A liberal application
of the ``='' key makes it very easy to spot a thread I'm interested
in reading. If I do want to read that thread, I can then proceed to
read the thread, read the whole thread, and nothing but the thread,
so help me BoB.
Lumping all the news together into one great group would include
and that nasty stuff about sex, horses and beer, and while the
combination of the three could prove interesting under some
circumstances, there isn't really a whole lot one can learn about
sex, horses, and beer from the net. One can therefore safely ingonre
those components.
Yes, I can recognize sarcasm, but the stoopidity indicator
went off first.
--
``The who's who of Milwaukee only eats Ugandan pineapples''
ric...@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!ric...@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
jeff daiell
> Brad Templeton rants:
> ) You people are forgetting something. You have to give the moderator
> ) some incentive. A moderator has to do some creative work in putting
> ) a group together or nobody's likely to volunteer for the job!
>
> A typical Bradism. Brad, *some* people are happy just to help out
> without needing their ego stroked or the wallet fattened.
Maybe. But how many are? And how long will any given one of them
last? If you're going to dump on Brad, do it when's he wrong....
I'm sure you won't have long to wait! {|8^)]
For an Independent Texas,
Jeff Daiell
--
"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those
who, in times of moral crisis, preserved their neutrality."
-- Dante
Richard Sexton
>Brad Templeton rants:
>) You people are forgetting something. You have to give the moderator
>) some incentive. A moderator has to do some creative work in putting
>) a group together or nobody's likely to volunteer for the job!
>
>A typical Bradism. Brad, *some* people are happy just to help out
>without needing their ego stroked or the wallet fattened.
Yes, but they arn't generally as qualified.
karl lehenbauer
> So in the case of say "talk.activism.animal-rights" the moderator might
> respond, (This is just an example)
> "While that's a valid and lively topic, the net is not a very
> efficient way of providing communications for small special
> interest groups. Realize there are 15,000 machines out there,
> but there might only be a few hundred animal rights activists.
> It wouldn't be fair to send messages to 15,000 machines for 200
> people to read them -- it would waste a lot of resources. People,
> in my opinion, would be upset to have their machine supporting
> an activist cause they may or may not agree with when nobody in
> their area even reads the group. I suggest a mailing list or
> an alt group. If you insist, I will put your proposal to the net
> but it is my educated guess that it will not gain enough support."
I think this would be bad. If there are 200 people who would read a group,
it probably would pass a vote anyway.
Rather than having someone who would decide if a group has merit (granted, an
override was allowed for, but a lot of people might be unwilling to try to
go against the moderator), right now the net decides via a vote, and users who
don't want the group can unsubscribe and sites that don't want to carry the
group can exclude it.
Having a moderator who tried to squash proposals that he/she didn't think
were justified because of consumption of resources is absurd, as the
availability of the resources on those 15,000 machines and what they're used
for is a decision ultimately made by the owners and administrators of each
machine. My point is: how the resources of the machines on the net are to
be utilized is not and should not be up to the future moderator of news.groups.
That person should only insure that only calls for discussion and votes and
vote results, etc, should be posted -- not to pass an a priori judgment on
whether the proposed group is worthwhile.
--
-- uunet!ficc!karl "Contemptuous lights flashed across the computer's
-- ka...@ficc.uu.net console." -- Hitchhiker's Guide
Tim J Ihde
>Sorry Brad, but the moderators job for news.groups.proposals or news.announce.
>groups (whichever we happen to decide on) should not be to decide which
>CALL FOR DISCUSSIONS will get posted. For example, if someone wants to call
>for the discussion of x.y, then the moderator should post it. He should not
>respond back by saying "Sorry, but your proposal will never succeed, therefore
>I won't post it."
This was not how I interpreted Brad's suggestion.
First of all, it is certainly true that the moderator should never refuse
to post a proposal if the poster really wants to go forward with it. However,
I don't think it would be a such a terrible thing for the moderator to
*advise* a poster "Well, you see, we've tried before with this rec.pipes idea,
and it went over like a 3B1."
If the poster responds "Well, OK, but I want to try anyway," then the call
should be posted.
The moderator is not deciding which discussions will be posted, but is
available to advise those who are trying to post. It would also be reasonable,
in my mind, for the moderator to say "This call for discussion is not in
the right format, you should also include such-and-such." These things
could save alot of bandwidth just in flamage.
As long as the unmoderated news.groups (or news.groups.d) exists in tandem
with the moderated group, the moderator cannot create his or her own
dictatorship, anyway. If everyone knows and agrees upon what the moderator's
job is, then abuses could easily be taken care of if they should occur through
complaints to news.groups and/or news.admin.
--
Tim J Ihde INTERNET: t...@attdso.att.com
(201) 898-6687 UUCP: att!attdso!tim
Richard Sexton
>>>A typical Bradism. Brad, *some* people are happy just to help out
>>>without needing their ego stroked or the wallet fattened.
>>
>>Yes, but they arn't generally as qualified.
>
>that's all I ask, just prove it. Please take into consideration the last
>paragraph - as well as continuing this in e-mail if neccessary.
People don't do something for nothing - it's against human nature. These
people that really put themselves out, do it for money, or do it for
the faint praise that occasionally wafts their way.
Clearly the issue is not as cut and dried as this, but in many cases,
and beyond organizations such as the net, this is what I've observed.
John Sparks
Sender:
Reply-To: spa...@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc.
Keywords:
Maybe I am missing something. I lost the beginning part of this thread.
I am under the impression that there is discussion on creating news.groups.d to
relieve some of the garbage traffic from news.groups, and that the proposal is
to make news.groups.d moderated. correct?
I agree that news.groups.d would be a good idea, but why would we want it
moderated? A discussion group such as this should be unmoderated so as to
promote free discussion. How can you be sure that a moderator is not coloring
the group with his own ideas? Passing on things that agree with his own beliefs
and weeding out those messages that don't agree? Who thinks they can decide
what is proper and what is not? And if a moderator's job is to just pass on
anything, then why do we need a moderator?
If we make a news.groups.d let's leave it unmoderated. It would still clear up
news.groups from extraneous postings but it would also allow unstifled sharing
of opinions without worry of censorship.
--
John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
||||||||||||||| spa...@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406
When in charge, ponder. When in doubt, mumble. When in trouble, delegate.
David H. Brierley
> No, it wouldn't. This would only guard against fraud by the VOTE-TAKER.
>But we all know mail messages can be forged. There is no way to verify that
>there aren't forged votes other than to post the names of all the voters to
>the net after the vote. If several people are surprised to see their names
>on the list, then we know forgery has probably occurred. With awk scripts
>counting the votes there is no way to detect forgery.
If someone is going to take the trouble to forge a mail message during a
vote why would they be so stupid as to use the name of a real person? If
I was going to forge a vote I would make sure the vote was not invalidated
by having the real person send in a vote of their own. If you want to see
an extreme example of mail message forgery maybe I should pick a vote at
random and submit 200 yes votes and 200 no votes, all of which would have
perfectly valid and unique return addresses and all of which could be
verified by sending mail to them and having all 400 send back messages
verifying that they did indeed submit the votes in question. Admittedly,
if you pay careful attention to the addresses in the votes you would
probably notice a pattern in these 400 votes and become somewhat suspicious.
Generating total random mail addresses would be somewhat easier but would
not have the added benefit of allowing the vote taker to send mail back to
each of the addresses and receive a reply.
Taking a vote on USENET must be dependent on trusting the honesty of the
people who are submitting the votes. If you attempt to ensure that none
of the votes received were forgeries you are going to be facing an impossible
task. My example above of 400 forged votes would probably be noticed without
too much trouble but do you think you would be able to detect it if someone
decided to submit 20 or even 30 votes on a controversial topic?
--
David H. Brierley
Home: da...@galaxia.Newport.RI.US {rayssd,xanth,lazlo,mirror}!galaxia!dave
Work: d...@rayssd.ray.com {sun,decuac,gatech,necntc,ukma}!rayssd!dhb
Richard Sexton
>arguments but Richard...
A wise move. Trangress again, and I'll have your liver.
Dan Chaney
>Matt Crawford raves:
>>Brad Templeton rants:
>>) You people are forgetting something. You have to give the moderator
>>) some incentive. A moderator has to do some creative work in putting
>>) a group together or nobody's likely to volunteer for the job!
>>
>>A typical Bradism. Brad, *some* people are happy just to help out
>>without needing their ego stroked or the wallet fattened.
>
>Yes, but they arn't generally as qualified.
I disagree here. Usually I try to stay out of these are/are-not type
arguments but Richard, I think you are wrong here. And in being wrong,
you run a risk that is not wholly yours to pay. For a long time and
even now, the essence of the net was 'based on a lot of hand waving'.
More precisely, some of the better successes have come from people that,
for no ego or financial gain, have worked long and hard to see something
good come about. I believe it is unfair and borderline insulting to
suggest these people, who have dedicated time and effort by their own
free choice, are in any way less qualified.
Just because you can't understand why someone is doing 'something for
nothing' does not give you the right to suspect either their motives
or qualifications. If I have to depend on someone that wants to do the
job and someone that wants to get paid to do a job, the choice is
plainly the former.
>ric...@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!ric...@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
-dan
In re-reading this, I see you left a loophole via 'generally'...prove it,
that's all I ask, just prove it. Please take into consideration the last
paragraph - as well as continuing this in e-mail if neccessary.
--
Daniel Chaney
Mail guy, archiver or Accidental Student..you decide.
{uunet and the like}!ukma!chaney cha...@ms.uky.edu cha...@ukma.BITNET
"No! nonono....This is Unix, you take out all the vowels!" - The Uhmmer
Yaakov Kayman
decide which calls for discussion do or do not get posted, whether
because of supposed unlikelihood of success of the group being proposed,
or whatever reason, I am opposed to calls for votes being assigned to
news.groups.d (or whatever name it is given, if/when the vote to be
taken is successful). That is, I believe, a legitimate function of the
existing - unmoderated - news.groups, and should stay so. Final vote
tallies should also be posted to news.groups with cross-posting to the
new - moderated - group, if desired. As to interim vote tallies, there
are apparently many opinions as to their desireability altogether.
Yaakov K.
--------
Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York
BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock
Internet: YZ...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU about whom the wolves complain"
Kenny `ophidiomaniac' Paul
Brad T. sez:
-A moderator has to do some creative work in putting
-a group together or nobody's likely to volunteer for the job!
To which David Lawrence (ta...@pawl.rpi.edu) repliez:
-Maybe that isn't enough incentive for you (and maybe even
-Greg), but it is for other people, including me.
^^^^^^^^^^^
I think someone just volunteered.
Regards, Kenny
David Wright
> Your ``='' key is broken ?
Or the ``k'' key, as my screen isn't long enough to show 160 articles at
once. (I only left the group for a few days, honest!)
But even = plus k plus a KILL file doesn't help as much as it should, because
PEOPLE KEEP CHANGING THE SUBJECT LINE.
If we showed more discipline in keeping to the subject we could cope
with the present volume in news.groups - at least those with rn or
similar could.
Regards, "None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity"
David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK
d...@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW