Moderator Vacancy Investigation: sci.physics.discrete
Steve Bonine
moderated group sci.physics.discrete
This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because
moderated newsgroup sci.physics.discrete is not functioning, and may
have been abandoned by its moderator(s).
This investigation will attempt to verify the reasons for non-function,
and may result in the removal of the group or the selection and
installation of a new moderator. In practice, the Big-8 Management
Board considers the third alternative -- changing the status of the
group from moderated to unmoderated -- as likely to cause more harm than
good.
NEWSGROUPS LINE:
sci.physics.discrete Discrete models of fundamental physical processes.
(Moderated)
RATIONALE: Probe posts to this group resulted in bounces.
DISTRIBUTION:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
sci.physics.discrete
sci.physics
CHARTER
sci.physics.discrete is a moderated newsgroup for discussions
related to research on discrete models of fundamental physical
processes, and the possibility that such models could represent
viable theories of physics.
Posting guidelines:
1) Posts must be related to the discussion of discrete models of
fundamental physical processes. Posts introducing new models or
theories must be reasonably succinct, and defined well enough to be
debated on concrete terms. Broad discussion of metaphysics and
philosophical implications of various models or theories will be
discouraged, except where such discussion has direct bearing on the
scientific merit of a specific relevant proposal.
2) Posts may be rejected if they contain personal attacks,
incitement to retribution (ie flames and obvious trolling), or
general hostility.
3) Posts may include links to websites or personal pages that
contain relevant and on-topic information about discrete models or
theories of fundamental physical processes. Posts that are, in the
opinion of the moderator, primarily intended to solicit business,
sell a product, or further some commercial purpose, will cause the
post to be rejected.
4) Posting of binary files is prohibited, except for small binary
files included as personal signatures or electronic business cards.
Short segments of source code or quotes from papers may be posted;
however, large projects and complete papers should be archived
elsewhere, and a link to the download site included in the post.
5) Crossposting is allowed in moderation.
6) No specific models, theories, or contributors will be given
preferential treatment, nor will any serious post that adheres to
these guidelines be arbitrarily refused.
HISTORY OF THE GROUP:
The group passed its vote on 26 February 2004 by 158:10. It was active
during 2004 and for a few months in 2005.
PROPONENT: Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com>
PROCEDURE:
Those who wish to comment on this moderator vacancy investigation should
subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the relevant
threads in that newsgroup. To this end, the followup header of this MVI
has been set to news.groups.proposals.
For more information on the MVI process, please see
http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderator_Vacancy_Investigations
CHANGE HISTORY:
17 June 2011: Moderator Vacancy Investigation
David Hobby
> � � � � � � � � � �MODERATOR VACANCY INVESTIGATION (MVI)
> � � � � � � � � � �moderated group sci.physics.discrete
>
> This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because
> moderated newsgroup sci.physics.discrete is not functioning, and may
> have been abandoned by its moderator(s).
Hi. I'm subscribed, and somewhat interested in the group.
Come to think of it, I haven't seen any posts in a long time.
Sorry, no, I'm currently too busy to moderate it.
---David
daniel miller
> MODERATOR VACANCY INVESTIGATION (MVI)
> moderated group sci.physics.discrete
>
> This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because
> moderated newsgroup sci.physics.discrete is not functioning, and may
> have been abandoned by its moderator(s).
>
I am an original moderator of this group, and would like to investigate the possibility of its resurrection. The issue that frustrated us at the time was an inability to find a workable set of tools to properly moderate and manage the group. We found that no matter what we did, 5 to 10% of posts failed to be injected properly. It seemed to be an issue with Google's servers, but all attempts to track it down ended in dark, Kafka-esque alleyways of complex, code-monkey madness.
If the situation has changed since then, it might be reasonable to investigate this again. Or perhaps, the time for usenet to thrive as a viable discussion platform on important subjects has passed.
Any thoughtful responses would be appreciated.
dan miller
Steve Bonine
> On Friday, June 17, 2011 6:27:31 PM UTC-7, Steve Bonine wrote:
>> MODERATOR VACANCY INVESTIGATION (MVI)
>> moderated group sci.physics.discrete
>>
>> This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because
>> moderated newsgroup sci.physics.discrete is not functioning, and may
>> have been abandoned by its moderator(s).
>>
> Hi --
>
> I am an original moderator of this group, and would like to investigate the possibility of its resurrection. The issue that frustrated us at the time was an inability to find a workable set of tools to properly moderate and manage the group. We found that no matter what we did, 5 to 10% of posts failed to be injected properly. It seemed to be an issue with Google's servers, but all attempts to track it down ended in dark, Kafka-esque alleyways of complex, code-monkey madness.
>
> If the situation has changed since then, it might be reasonable to investigate this again. Or perhaps, the time for usenet to thrive as a viable discussion platform on important subjects has passed.
>
> Any thoughtful responses would be appreciated.
then" is probably "no", but maybe I'm wrong.
Do you have any indication that there are current Usenet users who would
use the newsgroup if it were revived? Any related discussion in other
Usenet newsgroups? Did the original newsgroup die because of technical
problems with moderation or because there were no submissions?
As for the issue of a moderation platform, all the options I'm aware of
require investment of time and, unless you can find someone who is
willing to provide server resources, money. You might consider an
unmoderated newsgroup. I'm not familiar with the general situation in
the sci.physics user community these days, so an additional unmoderated
newsgroup might not be appropriate, but it does solve the problem of a
moderation platform.
Rob Kelk
>On 4/21/13 1:47 AM, daniel miller wrote:
>> On Friday, June 17, 2011 6:27:31 PM UTC-7, Steve Bonine wrote:
>>> MODERATOR VACANCY INVESTIGATION (MVI)
>>> moderated group sci.physics.discrete
>>>
>>> This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because
>>> moderated newsgroup sci.physics.discrete is not functioning, and may
>>> have been abandoned by its moderator(s).
>>>
>> Hi --
>>
>> I am an original moderator of this group, and would like to investigate the possibility of its resurrection. The issue that frustrated us at the time was an inability to find a workable set of tools to properly moderate and manage the group. We found that no matter what we did, 5 to 10% of posts failed to be injected properly. It seemed to be an issue with Google's servers, but all attempts to track it down ended in dark, Kafka-esque alleyways of complex, code-monkey madness.
>>
>> If the situation has changed since then, it might be reasonable to investigate this again. Or perhaps, the time for usenet to thrive as a viable discussion platform on important subjects has passed.
>>
>> Any thoughtful responses would be appreciated.
>
>I'm afraid the the answer to whether "the situation has changed since
>then" is probably "no", but maybe I'm wrong.
>
>Do you have any indication that there are current Usenet users who would
>use the newsgroup if it were revived? Any related discussion in other
>Usenet newsgroups? Did the original newsgroup die because of technical
>problems with moderation or because there were no submissions?
of the MVI and the reply by one of the group's moderators, I suspect
nobody noticed that the group was gone... If so, this doesn't bode well
for any hopes of a successful resurrection.
>As for the issue of a moderation platform, all the options I'm aware of
>require investment of time and, unless you can find someone who is
>willing to provide server resources, money. You might consider an
>unmoderated newsgroup. I'm not familiar with the general situation in
>the sci.physics user community these days, so an additional unmoderated
>newsgroup might not be appropriate, but it does solve the problem of a
>moderation platform.
wouldn't be too many hurdles in starting a new, unmoderated group with
the same name. (The hurdles would be on systems that didn't honour the
rmgroup request and still carry the group as (a) moderated and (b) in
existance.) Someone who wanted to see the group revived would need to
write a RFD to this end, though.
Kathy Morgan
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:24:11 CST, Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >On 4/21/13 1:47 AM, daniel miller wrote:
> >> On Friday, June 17, 2011 6:27:31 PM UTC-7, Steve Bonine wrote:
> >>> MODERATOR VACANCY INVESTIGATION (MVI)
> >>> moderated group sci.physics.discrete
> >>>
> >> the possibility of its resurrection. The issue that frustrated us at
> >> the time was an inability to find a workable set of tools to properly
> >> moderate and manage the group. We found that no matter what we did, 5
> >> to 10% of posts failed to be injected properly. It seemed to be an
> >> issue with Google's servers, but all attempts to track it down ended in
> >> dark, Kafka-esque alleyways of complex, code-monkey madness.
they provided that service to anyone. If it wasn't, then I don't see
how Google's servers could have anything to do with failure of posts to
be injected.
> >Do you have any indication that there are current Usenet users who would
> >use the newsgroup if it were revived? Any related discussion in other
> >Usenet newsgroups? Did the original newsgroup die because of technical
> >problems with moderation or because there were no submissions?
>
> Considering that there was a gap of almost two years between the posting
> of the MVI and the reply by one of the group's moderators, I suspect
> nobody noticed that the group was gone... If so, this doesn't bode well
> for any hopes of a successful resurrection.
I'm one of the moderators for news.groups.proposals, and when I approved
Daniel Miller's post, I was unaware that sci.physics.discrete had been
removed. I couldn't locate a RESULT posting in news.announce.newgroups
or news.groups.proposals, and my full list of groups was showing that it
still existed. Apparently it had been two years or more since I
refreshed my list of groups.
As Rob says, since the group has been removed from many servers,
possibly a new unmoderated group of the same name could be created--but
servers that don't honor B8MB control messages would still have the
group as moderated, which would cause problems for posters on those
systems.
--
Kathy
Steve Bonine
> I couldn't locate a RESULT posting in news.announce.newgroups
> or news.groups.proposals,
Beware result postings that contain multiple newsgroups.
Ned Latham
>
> MODERATOR VACANCY INVESTIGATION (MVI)
> moderated group sci.physics.discrete
>
> This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because
> moderated newsgroup sci.physics.discrete is not functioning, and may
> have been abandoned by its moderator(s).
>
> This investigation will attempt to verify the reasons for non-function,
> and may result in the removal of the group or the selection and
> installation of a new moderator. In practice, the Big-8 Management
> Board considers the third alternative -- changing the status of the
> group from moderated to unmoderated -- as likely to cause more harm than
> good.
arrive. The reason for the group's lack of activity would therefore seem
to lie with the moderator(s).
Of the actions mooted to deal with it, my preference is for the second.
Cheers,
Ned
----snip----
Adam H. Kerman
Steve Bonine
> Real cute there, not including the date on the attribution line.
>
> On Friday, June 17, 2011 6:27:31 PM UTC-7, Steve Bonine wrote:
Jason Evans
>
> Thank you, Adam.
help facilitate that.
__
JE
Adam H. Kerman
moderators, including technical competance, assistant moderators, and
most important, a moderator succession policy.
A sole moderator is obviously a single point of failure. You shouldn't
allow that any more.