Julien ÉLIE schrieb:
> 7 rmgroup articles were sent in January for de.alt.*, signed with a PGP key.
> Are they legitimate removals? Should a specific PGP key and a rule for
> de.alt* be added in control.ctl?
Control messages in de.alt.* are customarily sent by the proponents of the
respective proposals, signed by a personal key. The original assumption
was, I think, that admins will decide individually if they honor those
messages, like alt.*, but that was before my time. :)
In practice control messages for de.alt.* are watched by the moderation of
de.admin.news.announce which is sending checkgroups for de.* including
de.alt.* If there was no significant or well-founded protest against the
proposal (that's all de.alt.* has for rules - perhaps something like rough
consensus), the checkgroups message is adjusted accordingly, so newsgroups
will be created or removed as long as the checkgroup messages are honored.
For all other parts of de.* (i.e. de.!alt.*), there is a formal discussion
and voting system that had been modelled after the Big 8: a Request for
Discussion (RfD) has to be posted to the moderated group
de.admin.news.announce, followed by other RfDs or a Call for Votes. The
results are then implemented by the moderation of de.admin.news.announce
with new-/rmgroups signed with the hierarchy key.
> I guess the next checkgroups for de.* (signed with the de.* PGP key) will
> take into account these removals, if legitimate.
The last checkgroups, sent on 2022-02-01, has done that
(<
checkgrou...@dana.de>).
> Yet, it might be useful to integrate a de.alt.* key in order to process
> changes sooner.
There is no such thing as a key for de.alt.* :)
-thh