RFD: comp.lang.go - LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS

[Usenet Big-8 Management Board]

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group comp.lang.go

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.go

NEWSGROUPS LINE:

comp.lang.go The Go programming language (Golang)

RATIONALE:

On Usenet at the moment there are only computer programming languages
that were around in the 80's and 90's. To be able to bring more people
and colleagues to Usenet we need updated groups where people will find
it interesting to log in on a daily basis.

CHARTER:

comp.lang.go will be a unmoderated group, that could be upgraded to
moderated later if we get too much spam, where people interested in the
Go programming language can share ideas and topics, help each other, and
keep up with interesting projects.

PROCEDURE:

Please refer to the newsgroup creation policies listed here:

http://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup

All discussion of active proposals should be posted to
news.groups.proposals.

To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.proposals.

The final comment period lasts for five (5) days from the
time that this RFD is posted.

DISTRIBUTION:

This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:

news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
comp.lang.misc

PROPONENT:

Name: ReK2
Email: re...@hispagatos.org
Gemini: gemini://rek2.hispagatos.org

CHANGE HISTORY:

2023-07-03 1st RFD
2023-09-08 Final RFD / Last Call for Comments

[Rayner Lucas]

In article <MPG.3f77afab4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
bo...@big-8.org says...

>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.go
>
> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.go

A summary of discussion up this this point:

Initial informal proposal:
<t20mgj$tjt$1...@dont-email.me>

Replies in favour: (split between news.groups.proposals and news.groups)
meff: <t220cs$hfd$1...@dont-email.me>
Spiros Bousbouras: <zsZeFX5h...@bongo-ra.co> (not a Go programmer
but would read it)
John McCue: <t25gja$154$1...@dont-email.me>
a cat: <u6m01p$1ilrg$3...@dont-email.me>
John: <86wmzhk...@building-m.net>
Vasco Costa: <t2sfk2$1tfh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>

Replies against:
Adam H. Kerman would like to see more existing discussion before
considering the creation of a new group: <u6m01p$1ilrg$3...@dont-email.me>
Steve Bonine makes a similar suggestion: <t251fv$o44$1...@dont-email.me>


First RFD:
<u81jit$5eeu$1...@dont-email.me>

Replies in favour:
Syber Shock: <d84d5420307f18b128e6956313cbec07$1...@sybershock.com>
a cat: <u841p2$i40b$3...@dont-email.me>
NerdRat Hispagatos: <ua19oe$bmir$1...@matrix.hispagatos.org>
yeti: <87sf96a...@tilde.institute> (Also not a Go programmer, but
planning to read the group at least for a while)
Xenophon: <ucro7q$3ku21$4...@dont-email.me>
horeszko: <uctbc1$3vc7s$1...@dont-email.me>

Other replies in these threads were neutral or not directly relevant to
whether to create the group.

Regards,
Rayner

[sticks]

On 9/22/2023 9:07 AM, Usenet Big-8 Management Board wrote:

> CHARTER:
>
> comp.lang.go will be a unmoderated group, that could be upgraded to
> moderated later if we get too much spam, where people interested in the
> Go programming language can share ideas and topics, help each other, and
> keep up with interesting projects.

One of your links tries to dissuade a group from being moderated.

<https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/mod-pitfalls.html>

Personally, the thought of a group of people deciding what is spam and
who to censor bothers me. Especially here, where we have likely
participants who are well versed in computer usage and should be able to
set up workable filters. Moderated groups are far less user friendly,
though certainly some people are willing to put up with it because of
their own laziness in using filters. Either make it
moderated/unmoderated at the start, or risk losing participants when
someone decides it's time to change. I don't like starting a group with
this uncertainty.

[candycanearter07]

On 9/22/23 12:17, sticks wrote:
> Personally, the thought of a group of people deciding what is spam and
> who to censor bothers me.  Especially here, where we have likely
> participants who are well versed in computer usage and should be able to
> set up workable filters.  Moderated groups are far less user friendly,
> though certainly some people are willing to put up with it because of
> their own laziness in using filters.  Either make it
> moderated/unmoderated at the start, or risk losing participants when
> someone decides it's time to change.  I don't like starting a group with
> this uncertainty.

Agreed, it's supposed to be the USER-net.
--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[Richard Kettlewell]

Usenet Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> writes:
> CHARTER:
>
> comp.lang.go will be a unmoderated group, that could be upgraded to
> moderated later if we get too much spam, where people interested in the
> Go programming language can share ideas and topics, help each other, and
> keep up with interesting projects.

I don’t think changing moderation status is very practical. If (in the
future) a moderated group seems like a good idea (and the resources to
make it work are available) a separate comp.lang.go.moderated could be
created. i.e. I think the clause about a potential change in status
should be deleted.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Marco Moock]

Am 22.09.2023 um 11:17:10 Uhr schrieb sticks:

> Personally, the thought of a group of people deciding what is spam
> and who to censor bothers me.

Moderation can be different. Moderators CAN censor, but they can also
not do it and simply not allow spam to be posted.
According to a programming language group, it is rather defined that
everything that isn't about it is unwanted in that group.
I don't think that much spam will arrive, because Google won't create
it and therefore the spammers won't know how to post there.

> Especially here, where we have likely
> participants who are well versed in computer usage and should be able
> to set up workable filters.

> Either make it moderated/unmoderated at the start, or risk losing
> participants when someone decides it's time to change. I don't like
> starting a group with this uncertainty.

I agree with that, but I advocate for non-moderated.

[Marco Moock]

Agreed, but there are some places where not all users should be able
to post any bullshit.

This can and has been part of the Usenet for a long time.

[Marco Moock]

Why is there a need for moderation?
As for the spam from Google, moderators will most likely block
everything that comes from Google Groups until the shitheads from
Google care about abuse of their users.
Instead they will receive hundreds of spam mail a day.

Nobody can read groups on Google Groups that are filled with hundreds
of spam messages per day, so these users also won't post via Google
Groups.

[rek2 hispagatos]

Ok, that "comment" about maybe in the future making it moderated is at
the worse case scenario, not because someone posted someone else does
not like, also as you all know making it moderated is a hard task to do
and maintain so, as some of you mention as long google groups is not
touching it the rest of us are well versed in technical and nettiquete
ways.
Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that was
just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the option
open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get to the
point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will happen) so
just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel better, but as you
guys can see that is only in a comment not really how is going to end
up.


ReK2
Happy Hacking


--
- {gemini,https}://{,rek2.}hispagatos.org - mastodon: @re...@hispagatos.space
- [https|gemini]://2600.Madrid - https://hispagatos.space/@rek2
- https://keyoxide.org/A31C7CE19D9C58084EA42BA26C0B0D11E9303EC5

[Marco Moock]

Am 22.09.2023 um 14:37:22 Uhr schrieb rek2 hispagatos:

> Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that
> was just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the
> option open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get
> to the point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will
> happen) so just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel
> better, but as you guys can see that is only in a comment not really
> how is going to end up.

I understand that.

I advocate for creating that group as it is proposed - unmoderated.

If there is really no traffic at all after some time (IIRC there are
users interested in go), it can be deleted.
But I think it should be advocated in lang groups, also in other
hierarchies like de.* and fr.*.
Although that can be discussed after the creation.

[Theo]

rek2 hispagatos <re...@hispagatos.org.invalid> wrote:
> Ok, that "comment" about maybe in the future making it moderated is at
> the worse case scenario, not because someone posted someone else does
> not like, also as you all know making it moderated is a hard task to do
> and maintain so, as some of you mention as long google groups is not
> touching it the rest of us are well versed in technical and nettiquete
> ways.
> Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that was
> just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the option
> open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get to the
> point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will happen) so
> just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel better, but as you
> guys can see that is only in a comment not really how is going to end
> up.

The point being it's not really possible on current Usenet infrastructure to
convert an unmoderated group into a moderated one. You have to pick one or
the other and stick with it. If you change your mind, create a new group
with a different name and ask for deletion of the old one (or run both in
parallel).

So if you want an unmoderated group, fine. If you later decide it needs to
be moderated, you need to go through this process again to create
comp.lang.go.moderated (or whatever name).

Therefore saying 'we could go moderated later' in the RFD doesn't make any
sense because that's not an option open to a named group that starts off
unmoderated. The rationale for being unmoderated is fine, it's just the
'maybe later' statement that's troublesome.

Theo

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Marco,

> I advocate for creating that group as it is proposed - unmoderated.

I am also in favour of creating comp.lang.go, unmoderated.

While we're at it and that there seems to be an impulse to make a move
ahead for the Big-8 groups, wouldn't a comp.lang.rust group also be
useful nowadays?
And maybe another one for Android and iOS apps development? (either a
generic one for mobile development, or their specific languages which
currently are Kotlin and Swift)

> If there is really no traffic at all after some time (IIRC there are
> users interested in go), it can be deleted.

Yes, removing it from the official comp.* checkgroups (as real deletion
from every news server does not exist).

> But I think it should be advocated in lang groups, also in other
> hierarchies like de.* and fr.*.

Point noted for fr.*; I'll forward the suggestion to the fr.* Board.
In general, we notice that technical groups in comp.* have a broader
audience than local ones. As there are more contributors in comp.* than
in fr.comp.* for instance, French-speaking people tend to directly post
in comp.* (the recent example is a contributor in fr.comp.lang.tcl who
told us that this French-speaking newsgroup is dead, its readers all
moved to comp.lang.ctl - <60239629$0$6192$426a...@news.free.fr>).

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Mieux vaut prendre le changement par la main avant qu'il ne nous
prenne par la gorge. » (Winston Churchill)

[candycanearter07]

Then maybe make a comp.lang.go.moderated too

[candycanearter07]

On 9/22/23 13:25, Marco Moock wrote:

> Why is there a need for moderation?
> As for the spam from Google, moderators will most likely block
> everything that comes from Google Groups until the shitheads from
> Google care about abuse of their users.

Google will *probably* never care about Usenet, but hey there's a chance.

[Richard Kettlewell]

rek2 hispagatos <re...@hispagatos.org.invalid> writes:
> Ok, that "comment" about maybe in the future making it moderated is at
> the worse case scenario, not because someone posted someone else does
> not like, also as you all know making it moderated is a hard task to do
> and maintain so, as some of you mention as long google groups is not
> touching it the rest of us are well versed in technical and nettiquete
> ways.

Let me make the point more clearly: it is not going to be possible to
switch an existing non-moderated group to moderated in a reliable
way. If there is ever to be a moderated group, it needs to be a
_different_ group.

> Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that was
> just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the option
> open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get to the
> point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will happen) so
> just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel better, but as you
> guys can see that is only in a comment not really how is going to end
> up.

The option of changing it to a different status basically does not
exist, and putting it in the charter that it does would be futile.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Marco Moock]

Am 23.09.2023 um 08:48:37 Uhr schrieb Julien ÉLIE:

> Hi Marco,
>
> > I advocate for creating that group as it is proposed - unmoderated.
> >
>
> I am also in favour of creating comp.lang.go, unmoderated.
>
> While we're at it and that there seems to be an impulse to make a
> move ahead for the Big-8 groups, wouldn't a comp.lang.rust group also
> be useful nowadays?

rek2 already suggested that.

> And maybe another one for Android and iOS apps development? (either a
> generic one for mobile development, or their specific languages which
> currently are Kotlin and Swift)

If there is interest, why not?

> > If there is really no traffic at all after some time (IIRC there are
> > users interested in go), it can be deleted.
>
> Yes, removing it from the official comp.* checkgroups (as real
> deletion from every news server does not exist).

Most servers will perform checkgroups. I don't care about those that
not do.

[Marco Moock]

Am 23.09.2023 um 08:48:35 Uhr schrieb candycanearter07:

> On 9/22/23 13:25, Marco Moock wrote:
> > Why is there a need for moderation?
> > As for the spam from Google, moderators will most likely block
> > everything that comes from Google Groups until the shitheads from
> > Google care about abuse of their users.
>
> Google will *probably* never care about Usenet, but hey there's a
> chance.

They don't care, so I don't care about Google.

Most interesting traffic doesn't come from Google groups, especially in
times of thousands of spam post a day in certain groups.
User will have to switch to another news server to be able to read the
group.

[Marco Moock]

Am 23.09.2023 um 08:48:34 Uhr schrieb candycanearter07:

> On 9/22/23 13:25, Marco Moock wrote:
> > Am 22.09.2023 um 11:41:42 Uhr schrieb candycanearter07:
> >> Agreed, it's supposed to be the USER-net.
> >
> > Agreed, but there are some places where not all users should be able
> > to post any bullshit.
> >
> > This can and has been part of the Usenet for a long time.
>
> Then maybe make a comp.lang.go.moderated too

I don't see a reason for that in the current situation, so I won't do
it.

[David Taylor]

On 23/09/2023 15:48, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
> While we're at it and that there seems to be an impulse to make a move ahead
> for the Big-8 groups, wouldn't a comp.lang.rust group also be useful nowadays?
> And maybe another one for Android and iOS apps development? (either a generic
> one for mobile development, or their specific languages which currently are
> Kotlin and Swift)

We already have:

comp.mobile.android
comp.mobile.ipad

which may go some way to meeting your suggestion.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

[Blue-Maned_Hawk]

Julien ÉLIE wrote:

> While we're at it and that there seems to be an impulse to make a move
> ahead for the Big-8 groups, wouldn't a comp.lang.rust group also be
> useful nowadays?

The Rust community does not seem to me like the type of community that
would find NNTP to be an acceptable protocol for their discussions.



--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/
blu.mÉ›in.dÊ°ak/│he/him/his/himself/
Mr. bluemanedhawk.github.io
We'll never succumb to carcinization!

[Tristan Miller]

Greetings.

On 2023-09-22 19:59, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> I don’t think changing moderation status is very practical. If (in the
> future) a moderated group seems like a good idea (and the resources to
> make it work are available) a separate comp.lang.go.moderated could be
> created. i.e. I think the clause about a potential change in status
> should be deleted.

Back in July we advised the RFD's proponent about the impracticality of
changing the moderation status of a group, but it seems they decided not
to revise this clause of the RFD before submitting it for voting.
Speaking personally, I'm not bothered about the clause as I consider it
to be ineffective and therefore not binding. That is, the group's
charter notwithstanding, any subsequent change in moderation status
would not be automatic but rather would have to go through a formal RFD
process.

The proponent is of course free to withdraw the RFD and resubmit it
without the problematic moderation clause. Otherwise the Board will
vote on the RFD as-is on Friday, 29 September.

Regards,
Tristan

--
Usenet Big-8 Management Board
https://www.big-8.org/
bo...@big-8.org

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Richard,

> Let me make the point more clearly: it is not going to be possible to
> switch an existing non-moderated group to moderated in a reliable
> way. If there is ever to be a moderated group, it needs to be a
> _different_ group.

I'm just curious about what would go wrong if comp.lang.go is made
moderated after its creation.
I'm of course OK that there is no "reliable way" to ensure it is done at
every news sites, but what if it is done?

As far as I see:
- on news servers which do not honour control articles, comp.lang.go
won't be created, so making it moderated does not change anything;

- on news servers which honour only newgroup control articles,
comp.lang.go will be created, and the newgroup control article making it
moderated will similarly be processed, so it's fine;

- on news servers which honour the newgroup control article for its
creation but not subsequent newgroup control articles (does such a
configuration exist?), well we'll end up with an unmoderated
comp.lang.go newsgroups on these servers whereas its true status is
moderated. Which implies that this unmoderated newsgroup will go on
receiving all posted articles to it (which is fine, but unfortunately
for their users, all the associated spam/abuse/flood/trolling/...). The
only point would be for the "well-administered" news servers (synonym of
Marco's "good tone") which have this newsgroup moderated. They would be
relieved from spam (which is fine) but do not see articles posted to
news servers which do not honour subsequent newgroup control articles
(these articles would be refused because of lack of the Approved header
field). I am unsure this configuration exist for news servers (but I
may be wrong) and even if this was the case, the readers of the
moderated newsgroup won't just see postings from other
"non-administered" news servers. It is the only drawback, and the
importance just depends on the point of view taken (some will say it
does not matter at all as the contribution of the users of these
"non-administered" servers are considered to be of "less quality", while
others will say that the moderated newsgroup will miss some useful
postings). That's a matter of point of view, but naturally if the
readers of the moderated newsgroup prefer to read spam/flood/etc. they
can migrate to such a news server providing them all these sorts of
abuse. I bet that these servers which would not follow subsequent
newgroup control articles while having accepted the first one do not
actively fight spam/flood to provide a decent reader experience...

> The option of changing it to a different status basically does not
> exist, and putting it in the charter that it does would be futile.

I'm not really convinced the option does not exist but I may have
overlooked something.
Just curious :)

Not wanting to start a long thread of arguments and counter-arguments
here, but just trying to understand the logics behind the *real*
drawbacks when moderating a posteriori a newsgroup, as several people
here spoke about.

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Open the black window and type text, to fix the network. »

[rek2 hispagatos]

Hello Tristan,
As you mention is just a comment as an idea, that makes no difference
because is submited a un-moderated, not sure why is creating so much
fush, but if people feel happier if we remove it then I guess we can
remove it? the only reason I said to not remove it at first was to
speed things up since is my first time submitting RFD's and I been
struggling a bit with it, good thing someone else from this newsgroup
is helping me.

So if everyone wants us to remove it, beat it, as I said it makes no
difference to have it or not. Just whatever it makes everyone happier
I just wanted to speed the process a bit by not removing it.


Happy Hacking
ReK2

[Marco Moock]

Am 25.09.2023 um 07:50:50 Uhr schrieb Julien ÉLIE:

> I'm just curious about what would go wrong if comp.lang.go is made
> moderated after its creation.
> I'm of course OK that there is no "reliable way" to ensure it is done
> at every news sites, but what if it is done?

People will post in the group on a server that hasn't changed it to
moderated and the post will not reach the moderation.

> As far as I see:
> - on news servers which do not honour control articles, comp.lang.go
> won't be created, so making it moderated does not change anything;

True, but there might be servers that create it and will not change it
to moderated, even if the probability is very, very low.
I don't think that this will be a real situation.

> - on news servers which honour the newgroup control article for its
> creation but not subsequent newgroup control articles (does such a
> configuration exist?), well we'll end up with an unmoderated
> comp.lang.go newsgroups on these servers whereas its true status is
> moderated. Which implies that this unmoderated newsgroup will go on
> receiving all posted articles to it (which is fine, but unfortunately
> for their users, all the associated spam/abuse/flood/trolling/...).

The users will most likely killfile such servers. Take Google Groups as
an example.

> The only point would be for the "well-administered" news servers
> (synonym of Marco's "good tone") which have this newsgroup moderated.
> They would be relieved from spam (which is fine) but do not see
> articles posted to news servers which do not honour subsequent
> newgroup control articles (these articles would be refused because of
> lack of the Approved header field).

True. But that is the case when admins don't honor the decisions of the
big 8 board.
Good servers do it, so for the vast majority of users it is not a
problem.

> I am unsure this configuration exist for news servers (but I may be
> wrong) and even if this was the case, the readers of the moderated
> newsgroup won't just see postings from other "non-administered" news
> servers. It is the only drawback, and the importance just depends on
> the point of view taken (some will say it does not matter at all as
> the contribution of the users of these "non-administered" servers are
> considered to be of "less quality", while others will say that the
> moderated newsgroup will miss some useful postings).

True, but the vast majority of good content comes from well
administrated servers.
The probability that servers will create comp.lang.go, but don't change
it to moderated, is very, very low, so I think it is only theoretical
problem.

> That's a matter of point of view, but naturally if the readers of the moderated
> newsgroup prefer to read spam/flood/etc. they can migrate to such a
> news server providing them all these sorts of abuse.

Full ack. Simply think about Mixmin and dizum.
How much valuable content does come from them?

> I bet that these servers which would not follow subsequent newgroup
> control articles while having accepted the first one do not actively
> fight spam/flood to provide a decent reader experience...

I don't think that that situation will occur.

> > The option of changing it to a different status basically does not
> > exist, and putting it in the charter that it does would be futile.
>
> I'm not really convinced the option does not exist but I may have
> overlooked something.

Technically, it would be possible, but practically it would be hard to
reach the goal.

I advocate in removing the possibility of a future moderation for it.

[Marco Moock]

Am 25.09.2023 um 09:49:15 Uhr schrieb rek2 hispagatos:

> So if everyone wants us to remove it, beat it, as I said it makes no
> difference to have it or not. Just whatever it makes everyone happier
> I just wanted to speed the process a bit by not removing it.

I advocate to remove it from the RfD.

[Robert Prins]

It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more than) a couple
of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts of spam and off-topic
garbage posted to it at the time!

Robert
--
Robert AH Prins
robert(a)prino(d)org
The hitchhiking grandfather - https://prino.neocities.org/
Some REXX code for use on z/OS - https://prino.neocities.org/zOS/zOS-Tools.html

[candycanearter07]

On 9/25/23 13:43, Robert Prins wrote:
> It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more than) a
> couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts of spam and
> off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!
>
> Robert

And did it work?

[Russ Allbery]

Julien ÉLIE <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:

> - on news servers which honour the newgroup control article for its
> creation but not subsequent newgroup control articles (does such a
> configuration exist?), well we'll end up with an unmoderated
> comp.lang.go newsgroups on these servers whereas its true status is
> moderated.

Historically, the concern was that there were a lot of news servers that
were otherwise well-administered (not large sources of spam, for instance)
but that never honored control messages of any kind, and instead just
added groups on user request. A user would request the group be added, it
is added as unmoderated, it's then made moderated, nothing ever changes on
that server, and local users post into a void and may not realize that
their posts are being dropped.

I don't know how likely this is any more. Usenet is a much smaller place
than it used to be.

--
Russ Allbery (ea...@eyrie.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[candycanearter07]

Maybe there could be a normal message sent notifying of the new status?
Then it might be caught by a user. Or is there a newsgroup that every
server should have maybe?

[Russ Allbery]

candycanearter07 <n...@thanks.net> writes:

> Maybe there could be a normal message sent notifying of the new status?
> Then it might be caught by a user. Or is there a newsgroup that every
> server should have maybe?

Yeah, I would expect there to be a bunch of posts to the group itself
about the moderation status change, which given how small Usenet is these
days may well be sufficient to get things sorted out.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:56:53 CST
candycanearter07 <n...@thanks.net> wrote:
> On 9/25/23 13:43, Robert Prins wrote:
> > It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more than) a
> > couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts of spam and
> > off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!
> >
> > Robert
>
> And did it work?

I just checked and comp.lang.asm.x86 is doing fine. Also comp.ai changed
from unmoderated to moderated several years ago.

Anyway , I think this is a very minor issue and not worthy of so much
discussion. The real question is whether a comp.lang.go group would get any
(legitimate) posts.

[Marco Moock]

Am 25.09.2023 um 13:05:30 Uhr schrieb candycanearter07:

> Maybe there could be a normal message sent notifying of the new
> status? Then it might be caught by a user. Or is there a newsgroup
> that every server should have maybe?

Normally, the control messages have that purpose and hierarchy changes
are being discussed and announced in admin groups too, like here for
big 8.
The RfD is also posted in a group and most times in relevant groups
too, so there is a high probability that admins and users know about
the changes if they want to.

There are also servers that aren't administered anymore, either by the
software version of by the hierarchy.

Most likely nobody cares anymore in that case.

[Marco Moock]

Am 25.09.2023 um 12:56:53 Uhr schrieb candycanearter07:

> On 9/25/23 13:43, Robert Prins wrote:
> > It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more
> > than) a couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts
> > of spam and off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!
> >
> > Robert
>
> And did it work?

Seems so.

https://comp.lang.asm.x86.narkive.com/

Even messages from Google groups came in (Message-ID) and were approved
by the moderation software, so it seems that they even Google processed
the changes in the past.

[candycanearter07]

Fair enough.

[Richard Kettlewell]

Julien ÉLIE <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:
>> Let me make the point more clearly: it is not going to be possible to
>> switch an existing non-moderated group to moderated in a reliable
>> way. If there is ever to be a moderated group, it needs to be a
>> _different_ group.
>
> I'm just curious about what would go wrong if comp.lang.go is made
> moderated after its creation.
> I'm of course OK that there is no "reliable way" to ensure it is done
> at every news sites, but what if it is done?

It’s the unreliability of getting the status changed everywhere it
exists that concerns me. Servers that ignore all control messages or
honor all (signed) control messages wouldn’t be a problem; it’s those
with a less consistent policy (e.g. admin acts on changes their users
request, and nothing else) that leads to the problem.

The outcome is that posts generated on out-of-date servers aren’t sent
to the moderator software, and are dropped on updated servers because
they lack the approval header. Effectively the posts aren’t propagated
properly and the users don’t get any direct feedback that this is
happening - they just chatter unknowingly into the void.

I don’t know how widespread the issue would be but it’s easy to avoid
(i.e. by creating new groups instead of trying to change existing ones).


In principle having separate moderated groups also addresses some
people’s objections to moderation. In practice (at least based on
experience in uk.*) they complain incessantly even when unmoderated
counterparts exist, so there’s no real benefit to pandering to them.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Xenophon]

I remain in favour.

Seems obviously necessary.

[Mima-sama]

On 9/27/2023 06:20, Xenophon wrote:
> Seems obviously necessary.

"Obviously necessary" because?

Are people seriously discussing about Golang and its projects in Usenet?
If so, in which newsgroups? Is this *existing* discussion, if there's
any and I still haven't seen anyone prove yet despite plenty of people
supporting this RFD for some reason, causing problems to existing
newsgroups such that it warrants the "obvious" qualifier?

--
Mima
Reincarnated Legendary Evil Spirit of Complete Darkness

[Richard Kettlewell]

Mima-sama <m...@masa.ma> writes:
> On 9/27/2023 06:20, Xenophon wrote:
>> Seems obviously necessary.
>
> "Obviously necessary" because?
>
> Are people seriously discussing about Golang and its projects in Usenet?
> If so, in which newsgroups? Is this *existing* discussion, if there's
> any and I still haven't seen anyone prove yet despite plenty of people
> supporting this RFD for some reason, causing problems to existing
> newsgroups such that it warrants the "obvious" qualifier?

Someone’s been doing some Go NNTP work and talking about from time to
time in one of the news.* groups.

Anyway the group would be harmless even if it does turn out to be
essentially unused (which is already the case for huge numbers of
groups).

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Mima-sama]

On 9/27/2023 23:21, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Someone’s been doing some Go NNTP work and talking about from time to
> time in one of the news.* groups.

Ok. news.software.nntp. I'm not sure why nobody else supporting the
group creation has been using that group to prove that Golang deserves a
group of is own, but okay.

Still it doesn't fulfill the 10 posts/day over 90 days guideline which
is used to determine whether there's enough traffic about a topic such
that it should be split off to its own newsgroup, so I'm afraid I still
have to oppose.

> Anyway the group would be harmless even if it does turn out to be
> essentially unused (which is already the case for huge numbers of
> groups).

Harmless to you perhaps. But an abandoned newsgroup would mean yet
another failure by the Big-8 to make the use of Usenet relevant for a
topic. Which isn't really a good look for the rest of Usenet. I'd rather
Big-8 newgroup a topic we are definitely sure would have self-sustaining
discussion. And we can only get that kind of topic by guiding newbies
into the broader but relevant newsgroups (whether they're Big-8 or
alt.*) which actually badly need that activity. Not by spoonfeeding them
specific newgroups with relatively little effort.

[Robert Prins]

On 2023-09-25 18:56, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 9/25/23 13:43, Robert Prins wrote:
>> It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more than) a
>> couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts of spam and
>> off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!
>>
>> Robert
>
> And did it work?

Yes, it's been completely spam-free, and has been like that for many, many years.

[Theo]

Richard Kettlewell <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> The outcome is that posts generated on out-of-date servers aren’t sent
> to the moderator software, and are dropped on updated servers because
> they lack the approval header. Effectively the posts aren’t propagated
> properly and the users don’t get any direct feedback that this is
> happening - they just chatter unknowingly into the void.

I wonder if you could have a bot that listens for postings without the
approval header and emails the sender to let them know. It would probably
end up replying to a lot of spam, but maybe you could restrict it to replies
on existing threads (which spammers also do, but to a lesser extent).

No help if people post with invalid email addresses, but that's the tradeoff
you make when choosing to post that way.

Theo

[Richard Kettlewell]

Theo <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> The outcome is that posts generated on out-of-date servers aren’t sent
>> to the moderator software, and are dropped on updated servers because
>> they lack the approval header. Effectively the posts aren’t propagated
>> properly and the users don’t get any direct feedback that this is
>> happening - they just chatter unknowingly into the void.
>
> I wonder if you could have a bot that listens for postings without the
> approval header and emails the sender to let them know. It would
> probably end up replying to a lot of spam, but maybe you could
> restrict it to replies on existing threads (which spammers also do,
> but to a lesser extent).

It’d only work if it was transitively connected to the impacted user
by a path considered the group unmoderated throughout. So I don’t think
that’s really practical.

> No help if people post with invalid email addresses, but that's the
> tradeoff you make when choosing to post that way.

I don’t think I considered “lack of hypothetical notifications about
equally hypothetical misconfigured news servers” when I made that
decision l-)

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[candycanearter07]

On 9/30/23 15:40, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> Theo <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> No help if people post with invalid email addresses, but that's the
>> tradeoff you make when choosing to post that way.
>
> I don’t think I considered “lack of hypothetical notifications about
> equally hypothetical misconfigured news servers” when I made that
> decision l-)
>

Agreed.