sci.math.moderated, informal version 2.1
William Elliot
(Moderated)
Distribution List:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
sci.math
Proponent: William Elliot <ma...@rdrop.com>
Moderators: Bart Goddard, Bob Silverman, Penny Hassett, Jack Bateman
Rationale:
Over the last few years, the ever increasing amount of inane, off topic,
gross and commercial stuff has been posted at sci.math and ensuing upon
that, numerous posts complaining, lamenting about the large amount of
trash, what to do about it and added discussions about sci.math's
cranks.
The overwhelming amount of noisome noise puts an undue strain upon
legitimate posters just to filter out the inanity. To the loss of
sci.math, this volume of lousy posts and posters has discouraged some
of the quality posters. In addition, it likely discourages welcomed
new posters as well as giving others a totally wrong impression about
sci.math.
The abuse of sci.math has reached the point where some participants have
resolved to thwart further deterioration of sci.math by creating a
moderated sci.math. Four participants have offered to be moderators and
I, another participant, have offered to tackle the creation of a new group.
-- Charter and moderation policy
This newsgroup is a moderated newsgroup for discussion, primarily in
English, about mathematics, elementary through advanced, history of math,
math education, mathematical resources and mathematical puzzles, games and
humor.
Posts are required to be on topic, sensible,
devoid of rudeness and vulgarity, and non-commercial.
Posts regarding solution manuals are rejected.
Usenet etiquette is expected. See:
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm
To inquire about a moderator's rejection, post to sci.math.moderated
with subject "Moderator". Any reply will be by email.
This is a plain text newsgroup that excludes binaries and attachments.
----
Steve Bonine
> sci.math.moderated Mathematics, elementary through advanced. (Moderated)
Until I took a look, I didn't realize that the first version of this
informal proposal dates from August of last year. I have to wonder
whether, if this group of individuals can't manage to produce an actual
RFD in eight months, is there enough commitment to moderate a newsgroup
on a day-to-day basis?
The other thing that's missing is any support for the newsgroup. Unless
Google's search mechanism for sci.math is hiding them from me, I see no
articles from participants in sci.math requesting or supporting a
moderated companion newsgroup, and although the informal proposal has
sparked discussion here about language and character sets, I don't
remember anyone other than moderators actually saying that they would
use the proposed newsgroup.
> To inquire about a moderator's rejection, post to sci.math.moderated
> with subject "Moderator". Any reply will be by email.
I'm assuming that such submissions won't actually appear in the
newsgroup, and that you're using this as a shorthand method of reaching
the moderators. One of the things you'll run into is that many people
post to Usenet these days using a non-replyable email address, so if
someone simply posts their question to sci.math in the usual way you may
not be able to reply by email. The standard way of handling
administrative questions is to request people to email them to the
administrative email address.
Which brings me to my last question . . . the actual moderation platform
was a question when this newsgroup was first proposed. Do you have that
question resolved? It doesn't need to be in the RFD but it would be
nice to know that you've found a hardware/software platform upon which
to build the moderation site.
Bart Goddard
news:83isb0...@mid.individual.net:
> Until I took a look, I didn't realize that the first version of this
> informal proposal dates from August of last year. I have to wonder
> whether, if this group of individuals can't manage to produce an
> actual RFD in eight months, is there enough commitment to moderate a
> newsgroup on a day-to-day basis?
You could wonder that, but I suppose that, if we'd been
quick about it, you'd be wondering how well such a group
would run, given that it was slapped together in a rush.
Seriously, are we going to go through this nonsense again
with every "event" causing a problem and with every
"exact opposite event" causing some other problem?
If there's only one moderator, then he couldn't possibly
do the work. If there's several moderators, then they
can't possibly function together as a team. If only
ascii is allowed, then legitimate users can't post. If
many encodings are allowed, then the software and/or
moderators can't handle it. If there's lively discussion
then we can't move forward because there's too many
unanswered questions. If there's not enough discussion,
then we can't move forward because we don't have enough
input.
Yeah, we've been at this since August, and the chief
reason why is this "no matter what you say we'll find
a problem with it" game. No matter what X is, it's
too long, too small, too restrictive, too liberal,
too general, too specific,... And yeah, I know it's part
of the lore and part of the initiation and hazing, but
surely 4 threads of this is enough...unless you'd like
a few more Augusts to pass by first.
> The other thing that's missing is any support for the newsgroup.
> Unless Google's search mechanism for sci.math is hiding them from me,
> I see no articles from participants in sci.math
I went to advance search, typed in "moderated" in the words
blank, "sci.math" in the group blank and set the date for
Jan. 1 2009 to today, and got many hits. Here's one with
187 posts including 38 different authors.
Here's one with 272 posts and 29 authors
> Which brings me to my last question . . . the actual moderation
> platform was a question when this newsgroup was first proposed. Do
> you have that question resolved?
Yes. This was asked and answered in the last thread and probably
in the one before that.
Bottom line: We're mathematicians. There's probably no
OCD, anal-retentive, detail-crunching group on the planet.
We've been as thorough as is humanly possible. If we weren't,
you'd be having trouble with that. Since we are, you're
having trouble because it took time.
Bart
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Steve Bonine
> Steve Bonine<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Until I took a look, I didn't realize that the first version of this
>> informal proposal dates from August of last year. I have to wonder
>> whether, if this group of individuals can't manage to produce an
>> actual RFD in eight months, is there enough commitment to moderate a
>> newsgroup on a day-to-day basis?
>
> You could wonder that, but I suppose that, if we'd been
> quick about it, you'd be wondering how well such a group
> would run, given that it was slapped together in a rush.
Do you have any actual evidence to support such a statement?
The iPad newsgroup took a little over a month, from proposal to result.
I didn't complain about that; I don't think anyone else did.
> Yeah, we've been at this since August, and the chief
> reason why is this "no matter what you say we'll find
> a problem with it" game. No matter what X is, it's
> too long, too small, too restrictive, too liberal,
> too general, too specific,... And yeah, I know it's part
> of the lore and part of the initiation and hazing, but
> surely 4 threads of this is enough...unless you'd like
> a few more Augusts to pass by first.
The "D" in "RFD" means "discussion". You're absolutely right, someone
will disagree with some aspect of any proposal. Observe their input and
opinions, decide what you want, modify your proposal if you wish, and
move on.
Over the years, many newsgroups have been proposed and have gone through
the big-8 newsgroup-creation process. You've had eight months, and
you've yet to submit a real RFD. I consider this grounds to question
whether there's a commitment from the group that's proposing the
newsgroup. Oddly enough, you've not answered my concern.
>> The other thing that's missing is any support for the newsgroup.
>> Unless Google's search mechanism for sci.math is hiding them from me,
>> I see no articles from participants in sci.math
>
> I went to advance search, typed in "moderated" in the words
> blank, "sci.math" in the group blank and set the date for
> Jan. 1 2009 to today, and got many hits. Here's one with
> 187 posts including 38 different authors.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/27obon5
>
> Here's one with 272 posts and 29 authors
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2c5at42
There's a lot of text in these threads, but I see little support for the
creation of a moderated newsgroup.
The way to answer this concern is to publish a formal RFD, ask people to
post their support in news.groups.proposals, then publish a 2nd RFD and
include the MIDs of these articles.
>> Which brings me to my last question . . . the actual moderation
>> platform was a question when this newsgroup was first proposed. Do
>> you have that question resolved?
>
> Yes. This was asked and answered in the last thread and probably
> in the one before that.
OK. Good.
> Bottom line: We're mathematicians. There's probably no
> OCD, anal-retentive, detail-crunching group on the planet.
> We've been as thorough as is humanly possible. If we weren't,
> you'd be having trouble with that. Since we are, you're
> having trouble because it took time.
I'm not "having trouble". I am exploring the significance of the fact
that you've not created a formal RFD after eight months. My tentative
conclusion is that there's not the level of commitment required to
support a moderated newsgroup.
Prove me wrong.
Publish a formal RFD.
Get some people to post here saying they support the newsgroup.
Publish a 2nd RFD that lists MIDs for this support. If you wish, change
some aspects of your RFD based on the discussion, but that's not required.
Hundreds of newsgroup proposals have gone through this process. It's
not that hard. If you need assistance, ask for it from group-mentors.
Kathy Morgan
> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote in
> news:83isb0...@mid.individual.net:
>
> > Until I took a look, I didn't realize that the first version of this
> > informal proposal dates from August of last year. I have to wonder
> > whether, if this group of individuals can't manage to produce an
> > actual RFD in eight months, is there enough commitment to moderate a
> > newsgroup on a day-to-day basis?
>
> Seriously, are we going to go through this nonsense again
> with every "event" causing a problem and with every
> "exact opposite event" causing some other problem?
>
> If there's only one moderator, then he couldn't possibly
> do the work. If there's several moderators, then they
> can't possibly function together as a team. If only
> ascii is allowed, then legitimate users can't post. If
> many encodings are allowed, then the software and/or
> moderators can't handle it. [...]
>
> Yeah, we've been at this since August, and the chief
> reason why is this "no matter what you say we'll find
> a problem with it" game.
That's just human nature; someone will always object to something. As
proponent, though, William Elliot has the final say on the shape of the
proposal.
> And yeah, I know it's part
> of the lore and part of the initiation and hazing, but
> surely 4 threads of this is enough...unless you'd like
> a few more Augusts to pass by first.
The proposal will never come to a vote or have any chance of having the
group created until a formal RFD and a Last Call for Comments are
posted. The only ones who will actually vote on the proposal are the
Big 8 Management Board members (see list at
<http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:b8mb_members>). There
are 10 board members, so you need to convince a majority of them that
the group is likely to succeed if created.
> I went to advance search, typed in "moderated" in the words
> blank, "sci.math" in the group blank and set the date for
> Jan. 1 2009 to today, and got many hits. Here's one with
> 187 posts including 38 different authors.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/27obon5
>
> Here's one with 272 posts and 29 authors
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2c5at42
I am rather concerned about this. Those are posts from 8 months ago.
None of the current discussion has been crossposted to or mentioned on
sci.math. Both of the recent informal proposals include the following:
> Distribution List:
> news.announce.newgroups
> news.groups.proposals
> sci.math
but in fact were posted only to news.groups.proposals, with no pointers
posted in sci.math. I assume that must have been an oversight so I'll
post a pointer at the same time I post this. (Don't try to post or
crosspost an informal proposal to news.announce.newgroups; it is a
moderated group which will not accept informal proposals or pointers.)
> > Which brings me to my last question . . . the actual moderation
> > platform was a question when this newsgroup was first proposed. Do
> > you have that question resolved?
>
> Yes. This was asked and answered in the last thread and probably
> in the one before that.
Well, no, I did ask the question but it was only partially answered.
What moderation platform do you plan to use? You say you have selected
a platform but evaded naming it.
--
Kathy
William Elliot
> William Elliot wrote:
>> sci.math.moderated Mathematics, elementary through advanced. (Moderated)
>
> Until I took a look, I didn't realize that the first version of this informal
> proposal dates from August of last year. I have to wonder whether, if this
> group of individuals can't manage to produce an actual RFD in eight months,
> is there enough commitment to moderate a newsgroup on a day-to-day basis?
>
Our persistence is demonstrated by persisting after all these months.
> The other thing that's missing is any support for the newsgroup. Unless
> Google's search mechanism for sci.math is hiding them from me, I see no
> articles from participants in sci.math requesting or supporting a moderated
> companion newsgroup, and although the informal proposal has sparked
> discussion here about language and character sets, I don't remember anyone
> other than moderators actually saying that they would use the proposed
> newsgroup.
>
The people who'll respond the most will be sci.math kooks who don't want
moderation.
>> To inquire about a moderator's rejection, post to sci.math.moderated
>> with subject "Moderator". Any reply will be by email.
>
> I'm assuming that such submissions won't actually appear in the newsgroup,
> and that you're using this as a shorthand method of reaching the moderators.
That's what's done with sci.math.research. There you can also reach the
moderators by email, which would be unadvised for a newsgroup populated by
kooks. Sci.math.research also has a back way of submitting which has been
needed at times.
> One of the things you'll run into is that many people post to Usenet these
> days using a non-replyable email address, so if someone simply posts their
> question to sci.math in the usual way you may not be able to reply by email.
That's their loss.
> The standard way of handling administrative questions is to request people to
> email them to the administrative email address.
>
I'd pass them on to the moderators to answer and, if they have include a
valid address, the moderators can decide.
They could also be asked to post questions about moderation at
news.admin.moderation if the moderators wanted to consistently
check that group.
> Which brings me to my last question . . . the actual moderation platform was
> a question when this newsgroup was first proposed. Do you have that question
> resolved?
Yes, that and the server. What do you think we were doing since the first
version?
> It doesn't need to be in the RFD but it would be nice to know that
> you've found a hardware/software platform upon which to build the moderation
> site.
>
The moderators are using DMod for Windows and I'm using
forwarding code from a Unix shell account for the server.
The moderators have yet to concur upon a method for taking turns
at moderating that doesn't skip or double post, incoming posts
Kathy Morgan
followup if you wish your response to be seen elsewhere.]
Top posted, in violation of my normal policy; the entire body of the
original article is below.
There has been informal discussion for the past week in
news.groups.proposals about creating a new group sci.math.moderated. If
you have an opinion about whether such a group should be created, or
comments about the charter, the moderation policy, or the proposed
moderation team, please join the discussion in news.groups.proposals and
make your opinion known. If you would subscribe to or post to the
proposed group if it is created, please mention that as well.
Kathy, member of B8MB but speaking only for myself
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> Seriously, are we going to go through this nonsense again
> with every "event" causing a problem and with every
> "exact opposite event" causing some other problem?
Please, don't be irritated about the course of the discussion.
As far as I see, nobody on the board is against your proposal.
All objections so far concern procedural matters.
We would like to have a formal RfD, followed by a formal LCC,
so that we can vote on the matter. There are some guidelines
how such a formal RfD should look like. That's all.
> If there's only one moderator, then he couldn't possibly
> do the work. If there's several moderators, then they
> can't possibly function together as a team.
I guess SMM will be a low-traffic group with well-thought-out posts.
Thus the work load is not an issue.
As with all moderated groups we would like to have backup moderators.
Just in case the main moderator gets hit by the twinky truck. Since SMM
accompanies an unmoderated group, however, this is not a pressing issue.
> If only ascii is allowed, then legitimate users can't post. If
> many encodings are allowed, then the software and/or
> moderators can't handle it.
A moderator is free to reject submissions for any reason. Reasons don't
have to be consistent or sane. If published moderation policies exist
they can be changed anytime, without prior notice.
Because of their volatile nature it is not a good idea, however, to
include moderation policies in the group charter (which cannot be ever
changed under the current policy of the B8MB).
> If there's lively discussion
> then we can't move forward because there's too many
> unanswered questions. If there's not enough discussion,
> then we can't move forward because we don't have enough
> input.
I don't know what you mean with "input" here. What we would like to see
is a list of Usenet messages (i.e. a Message-ID: and From:) where people
say that they would like to use the proposed group.
For a recent example see sci.physics.acoustics
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=nan:2010-04-04-lcc-sci.physics.acoustics
(Note that contentwise this is actually a bad example. Most of the ref-
erenced messages are inconclusive. What eventually convinced the board
were mails the supportes sent to the board's list.)
> [...]
> I went to advance search, typed in "moderated" in the words
> blank, "sci.math" in the group blank and set the date for
> Jan. 1 2009 to today, and got many hits. Here's one with
> 187 posts including 38 different authors.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/27obon5
>
> Here's one with 272 posts and 29 authors
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2c5at42
This is equivalent to "The correct formula is somewhere in the
library." Please, be nice.
>> Which brings me to my last question . . . the actual moderation
>> platform was a question when this newsgroup was first proposed. Do
>> you have that question resolved?
>
> Yes. This was asked and answered in the last thread and probably
> in the one before that.
Excellent. Please, add frequently answered questions to your proposal.
Note that some members of the board (like me) started their term in
October 2009 and have no living memory of the discussions that happened
before.
> [...]
> Bottom line: We're mathematicians. There's probably no
> OCD, anal-retentive, detail-crunching group on the planet.
> We've been as thorough as is humanly possible. If we weren't,
> you'd be having trouble with that. Since we are, you're
> having trouble because it took time.
So what. I am a software engineer. Don't try to outweird me.
--
William Elliot
> We would like to have a formal RfD, followed by a formal LCC,
> so that we can vote on the matter. There are some guidelines
> how such a formal RfD should look like. That's all.
>
That's in the making. Informal version 3.0 will include the
boilerplate comments about creating a newsgroup. Have you
reference where the boilerplates can be found?
>> If there's only one moderator, then he couldn't possibly
>> do the work. If there's several moderators, then they
>> can't possibly function together as a team.
>
> I guess SMM will be a low-traffic group with well-thought-out posts.
> Thus the work load is not an issue.
>
Agreed. I'd be nice if it exceeded the traffic of sci.math.research.
> As with all moderated groups we would like to have backup moderators.
> Just in case the main moderator gets hit by the twinky truck. Since SMM
> accompanies an unmoderated group, however, this is not a pressing issue.
>
SMM ?
>> If only ascii is allowed, then legitimate users can't post. If
>> many encodings are allowed, then the software and/or
>> moderators can't handle it.
>
At present, it's stated that is is a plane text newsgroup, without
any emphasis such as "only" or "exclussively". It's a soft requirement
rather than a hard requirement. Likely some TeX will be allow without
problem but wouldn't if too much ruins the readablity of posts for those
who don't have TeX.
> A moderator is free to reject submissions for any reason. Reasons don't
> have to be consistent or sane. If published moderation policies exist
> they can be changed anytime, without prior notice.
I expect moderators will vary about moderation. I've see it happen.
> Because of their volatile nature it is not a good idea, however, to
> include moderation policies in the group charter (which cannot be ever
> changed under the current policy of the B8MB).
Ok, in the proposal, I'll split the section "Charter and Moderation
Policy" into two sections, "Charter" and "Moderation Policy".
> I don't know what you mean with "input" here. What we would like to see
> is a list of Usenet messages (i.e. a Message-ID: and From:) where people
> say that they would like to use the proposed group.
>
> For a recent example see sci.physics.acoustics
> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=nan:2010-04-04-lcc-sci.physics.acoustics
>
> (Note that contentwise this is actually a bad example. Most of the ref-
> erenced messages are inconclusive. What eventually convinced the board
> were mails the supportes sent to the board's list.)
>
>> I went to advance search, typed in "moderated" in the words
>> blank, "sci.math" in the group blank and set the date for
>> Jan. 1 2009 to today, and got many hits. Here's one with
>> 187 posts including 38 different authors.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/27obon5
>>
>> Here's one with 272 posts and 29 authors
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2c5at42
>
> This is equivalent to "The correct formula is somewhere in the
> library." Please, be nice.
>
> Please, add frequently answered questions to your proposal.
> Note that some members of the board (like me) started their term in
> October 2009 and have no living memory of the discussions that happened
> before.
>
Do you mean frequently asked questions?
Don't FAQ's come later in the creation of a newsgroups?
The frequently answered question has been about moderation software.
It's been answered not yet a half dozen times, all within April.
----
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
trouble is, moderated groups often turn into "thought police." I would
like to see the moderators only disallow the grossest violations.
What I would like to see continue to be allowed are inane discussions
that are on topic, including those endless discussions on whether
0.999... equals 1, never ending attempts to prove Fermat's last theorem,
and the correctness or otherwise of Cantor's diagonal argument. These
discussions were often part of the character of sci.math, and I would be
sad to see those trolls disappear.
So please, only reject those posts that are obvious spam.
Also, top-posting these days is used by everyone who isn't hard core
netiquette. Reply rudely to top posters if you must, but please don't
moderate them down.
Stephen
William Elliot
> Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote in
>> I went to advance search, typed in "moderated" in the words
>> blank, "sci.math" in the group blank and set the date for
>> Jan. 1 2009 to today, and got many hits. Here's one with
>> 187 posts including 38 different authors.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/27obon5
>>
>> Here's one with 272 posts and 29 authors
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2c5at42
>
> I am rather concerned about this. Those are posts from 8 months ago.
> None of the current discussion has been crossposted to or mentioned on
> sci.math. Both of the recent informal proposals include the following:
>
>> Distribution List:
>> news.announce.newgroups
>> news.groups.proposals
>> sci.math
>
> but in fact were posted only to news.groups.proposals, with no pointers
> posted in sci.math. I assume that must have been an oversight so I'll
> post a pointer at the same time I post this. (Don't try to post or
> crosspost an informal proposal to news.announce.newgroups; it is a
> moderated group which will not accept informal proposals or pointers.)
>
No it's not an oversight as this isn't a formal proposal.
>>> Which brings me to my last question . . . the actual moderation
>>> platform was a question when this newsgroup was first proposed. Do
>>> you have that question resolved?
>>
>> Yes. This was asked and answered in the last thread and probably
>> in the one before that.
>
> Well, no, I did ask the question but it was only partially answered.
> What moderation platform do you plan to use? You say you have selected
> a platform but evaded naming it.
>
I answered that in detail in another post.
Paul W. Schleck
Hash: SHA1
In <2010042523...@agora.rdrop.com> William Elliot <ma...@rdrop.remove.com> writes:
>On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Steve Bonine wrote:
>> William Elliot wrote:
>>> sci.math.moderated Mathematics, elementary through advanced. (Moderated)
>>
>> Until I took a look, I didn't realize that the first version of this informal
>> proposal dates from August of last year. I have to wonder whether, if this
>> group of individuals can't manage to produce an actual RFD in eight months,
>> is there enough commitment to moderate a newsgroup on a day-to-day basis?
>>
>Our persistence is demonstrated by persisting after all these months.
My newsgroup, rec.radio.amateur.moderated, took approximately 9 years
from conception to implementation. Of that, maybe the final 4 years
were spent on focused planning and team-building. What matters most is
the final result, a successfuly created and running newsgroup. We might
wonder at the end why things took so long, but sometimes that's the
nature of worthwhile volunteer projects that require team effort and
community support. Taking a long time to plan might even be seen as a
demonstration of seriousness, and actually improving your chances of
eventual success. Sometimes a topic community has to be ready, and we
were definitely ready by 2007.
>> The other thing that's missing is any support for the newsgroup. Unless
>> Google's search mechanism for sci.math is hiding them from me, I see no
>> articles from participants in sci.math requesting or supporting a moderated
>> companion newsgroup, and although the informal proposal has sparked
>> discussion here about language and character sets, I don't remember anyone
>> other than moderators actually saying that they would use the proposed
>> newsgroup.
>>
>The people who'll respond the most will be sci.math kooks who don't want
>moderation.
That, too, can support the idea of your proposed moderated newsgroup.
It could demonstrate that the unmoderated newsgroup has been, and will
be, consistently undermined by people who don't want to abide by basic
rules of civility and topic focus. Newsgroups are not created by direct
democracy. You only have to convince the Big-8 Board, which can
certainly make appropriate judgments about the merits of individual
statements of support or opposition.
>>> To inquire about a moderator's rejection, post to sci.math.moderated
>>> with subject "Moderator". Any reply will be by email.
>>
>> I'm assuming that such submissions won't actually appear in the newsgroup,
>> and that you're using this as a shorthand method of reaching the moderators.
>That's what's done with sci.math.research. There you can also reach the
>moderators by email, which would be unadvised for a newsgroup populated by
>kooks. Sci.math.research also has a back way of submitting which has been
>needed at times.
>> One of the things you'll run into is that many people post to Usenet these
>> days using a non-replyable email address, so if someone simply posts their
>> question to sci.math in the usual way you may not be able to reply by email.
>That's their loss.
We've struggled with that one, too. Sometimes there's enough hints in
the E-mail that if it would be important enough to reply, we can find an
E-mail address somewhere. For example, rec.radio.amateur.moderated has
participants that often can be looked up in online "callbooks" like the
one at qrz.com, including any registered E-mail addresses. There is
also an E-mail address reflector run by the national amateur radio
society in the U.S., the American Radio Relay League
(<callsign>@arrl.net). Certain academic and professional societies may
also support such reflectors, such as the Institute for Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (ieee.org) and the Association for Computing
Machinery (acm.org). Are there similar professional societies, and
E-mail address reflectors, for mathematicians?
Most of the time, people who don't submit with actual, or at least
"unmungeable", E-mail addresses usually aren't interested in a direct
reply, anyway.
>> The standard way of handling administrative questions is to request people to
>> email them to the administrative email address.
>>
>I'd pass them on to the moderators to answer and, if they have include a
>valid address, the moderators can decide.
>They could also be asked to post questions about moderation at
>news.admin.moderation if the moderators wanted to consistently
>check that group.
>> Which brings me to my last question . . . the actual moderation platform was
>> a question when this newsgroup was first proposed. Do you have that question
>> resolved?
>Yes, that and the server. What do you think we were doing since the first
>version?
That's the nature of behind-the-scenes planning, it's behind the scenes.
You don't have to "prove" that you were making progress, but help us
understand your planning efforts by giving us some more specific
descriptions of the progress that you have made. You don't have to go
into indiscrete details that would undermine your site's security or any
assumptions of team confidentiality, of course. It's just that the more
details you give, the more specific and helpful recommendations we can
make.
>> It doesn't need to be in the RFD but it would be nice to know that
>> you've found a hardware/software platform upon which to build the moderation
>> site.
>>
>The moderators are using DMod for Windows and I'm using
>forwarding code from a Unix shell account for the server.
>The moderators have yet to concur upon a method for taking turns
>at moderating that doesn't skip or double post, incoming posts
Experience from running a moderated newsgroup using a team of moderators
has shown that that is a very important detail. You may wish to ask the
sci.physics.research moderation team
(physics-rese...@ncar.ucar.edu) for their Unix server-side
script that accepts submissions and distributes each one to a random,
single moderator. There are also script solutions (contact me for
details) that trap for duplicates via MD5 checksum calculations on
message bodies.
- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFL1aVe6Pj0az779o4RAotuAJ0a2EUQ1ybAtYARZtppd34Xr+RJDACdH+PR
xQLlfzoWpzgdiGwmPkNiFdo=
=568d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul W. Schleck
Hash: SHA1
In <2010042605...@agora.rdrop.com> William Elliot <ma...@rdrop.remove.com> writes:
[...]
>I answered that in detail in another post.
Just a friendly suggestion that will help aid discussion and
decision-making. Certainly you're not expected to answer repetitive
questions repetitively. However, since this discussion has been ongoing
over several months, it would be helpful to try and summarize it in ways
that can be quickly found, reviewed, and understood by those trying to
decide on your proposal and give specific advice.
If you did answer something previously, particularly if it was more than
a few days ago, or in another thread, try to link back to your answer in
a traceable and easily retrievable way that can be followed by the
readers of news.groups.proposals. Some recommended ways to do this
include:
- Directly quoting your previous answer, and the approximate date on
which it was given.
- Giving the Message-ID of the Usenet article in which you gave your
previous answer.
- Searching for, and copying, a Google Groups archive web URL to the
article in which you gave your previous answer.
Please understand that we're not being lazy or pedantic here. Just that
the Big-8 Board and other interested parties review many, many proposals
in many different stages of development, and over relatively long
periods of time. Just as research in mathematics is communicated by a
history of papers that footnotes and improves upon what came prior,
developing your proposal for a moderated newsgroup via a reasonably
transparent, traceable, and summarizable evolutionary process can only
help its eventual success. You may also find this approach to be useful
and time-saving towards capturing and understanding your own knowledge.
I'm sorry that your team has had to endure an unfair amount of vexatious
challenges and repetitive questions in other unmoderated newsgroups
while trying to develop this proposal. One of the reasons why a
moderated newsgroup like news.groups.proposals was created was to
address this perceived problem. So be assured that you are among
supportive people who will evaluate your proposal in good faith and try
to make constructive suggestions. The weather may have been lousy
getting over here, but now that you have arrived, take off your
raincoat, sit down by the fire, have a hot drink, and let's have a
serious, adult conversation.
- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFL1bQW6Pj0az779o4RAqfWAKDVXVACCeNrc2cGbIl2vX5slhF2dQCfbdpQ
2nGV0Kv1pu6vfjCaJg9yzp4=
=43rS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Doug Freyburger
> Steve Bonine wrote:
>> William Elliot wrote:
>
>>> sci.math.moderated Mathematics, elementary through advanced. (Moderated)
>
Plenty of moderated groups take years to organize. The hard part is
assembling a team willing to do the moderation. The hardest part is
being the proponent who volunteers to do the up front work of the RFD
document and discussion plus to track the coverage on major NSPs until
the group is well propagated.
There's plenty of help available. You haven't written to the
group-mentors list for example.
> The people who'll respond the most will be sci.math kooks who don't want
> moderation.
That's what NGP is moderated for, and that's why only the board members
have votes. I have very aggressive filters for NG so I don't see if
you've had much discussion on that group. You don't have to pay any
attention to that group at all if you don't want to. It can easily not
be worth the frustration of reading the group.
>>> To inquire about a moderator's rejection, post to sci.math.moderated
>>> with subject "Moderator". Any reply will be by email.
>
>> I'm assuming that such submissions won't actually appear in the newsgroup,
>> and that you're using this as a shorthand method of reaching the moderators.
>
> That's what's done with sci.math.research.
This one also one of my earlier objections. It is not the usual
standard for administrative contacts. Since you have an established
precedent to work from go for it. I repeat my worry that a failure mode
of this method will put noise on the group.
> There you can also reach the
> moderators by email, which would be unadvised for a newsgroup populated by
> kooks. Sci.math.research also has a back way of submitting which has been
> needed at times.
All moderated groups have an administrative address. Working to get a
moderated group started the documents on the topic are ones you should
have read to know this point. I repeat my suggestion to avail yourself
of the help offered thorugh the big-8.org site.
>> One of the things you'll run into is that many people post to Usenet these
>> days using a non-replyable email address, so if someone simply posts their
>> question to sci.math in the usual way you may not be able to reply by email.
>
> That's their loss.
On this I agree. Anyone posting with a non-replyable address knows it
and is therefore expecting no responses. While the moderation team is
typically welcomed to un-mung source addresses for rejection messages
there is never a requirement to even attempt it. This again is a reason
why there is an administrative address.
I've seen the traffic to the administrative addresses of several groups
because I'm on several moderation teams. Most groups get little or no
traffic to those addresses. I don't know if most folks don't have
objections, don't want correspondence, don't know that the
administrative addresses exist. And having thought about the topic for
several years it no longer bothers me when there is no traffic to the
address. It's there when folks do want it.
>> The standard way of handling administrative questions is to request people to
>> email them to the administrative email address.
>>
> I'd pass them on to the moderators to answer and, if they have include a
> valid address, the moderators can decide.
To me it's a neccessary part of the RFD for a moderated group.
> The moderators have yet to concur upon a method for taking turns
> at moderating that doesn't skip or double post, incoming posts
I suggest that you do not need formal rules for that. Encourage the
members of the team to login to the interface regularly and approve or
reject messages. Then have a private list of moderators for discussion.
I've seen that converge on working ad hoc principles for several groups.
Some comments on your initial write up -
> Posts are required to be on topic, sensible,
> devoid of rudeness and vulgarity, and non-commercial.
There are a lot of posts who lack writing skills, so "sensible" is of
limited use. Mention of rudeness and vulgarity have a similar problem.
One person's day to day speech and writing may be very rude and vulgar
to another but still be on topic. I suggest rejecting posts that become
abusive. If the team is generous about accepting posts but consistant
about rejecting posts that drift into abuse the result will be very few
attempts at abuse. It's a feedback mechanism that works very well.
> Usenet etiquette is expected. See:
> http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm
That's one of many summaries available. Thanks for writing "expected"
not "required". You do not want to reject posts simply for top posting.
You may want to train newbies to trim but even then top posting need not
be cause for rejection most of the time.
To me top posting is not a reason for rejection. A complaint about top
posting is not either, as long as it is not abusive. A complaint that
top posting is better and that's why it was used has gotten to the point
that I'd reject it for being off topic. No idea even to call it not
sensible to me.
Kathy Morgan
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Alexander Bartolich wrote:
> > We would like to have a formal RfD, followed by a formal LCC,
> > so that we can vote on the matter. There are some guidelines
> > how such a formal RfD should look like. That's all.
> >
> That's in the making. Informal version 3.0 will include the
> boilerplate comments about creating a newsgroup. Have you
> reference where the boilerplates can be found?
The boilerplate and format information can be found at
<http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rfd>. Why do you
want to post yet another informal version? Why not go straight to an
RFD?
> > Please, add frequently answered questions to your proposal.
> > Note that some members of the board (like me) started their term in
> > October 2009 and have no living memory of the discussions that happened
> > before.
> >
> Do you mean frequently asked questions?
> Don't FAQ's come later in the creation of a newsgroups?
What Alexander is suggesting is that in your revised proposal you should
include the answers to questions about the proposal that have been
frequently asked and answered during the discussion. This will help
prevent having the question being asked yet again.
--
Kathy
Kathy Morgan
> The moderators are using DMod for Windows and I'm using
> forwarding code from a Unix shell account for the server.
Ah, thank you! When Bart answered the question before, I didn't
understand his answer. I thought he was saying that one of the proposed
moderators had had experience using DMod--I didn't understand that you
were proposing to use DMod.
> The moderators have yet to concur upon a method for taking turns
> at moderating that doesn't skip or double post, incoming posts
I used DMod in Windows emulation to moderate
comp.sys.mac.games.announce, so I have some experience with it. If you
forward the non-spam, non-duplicate submissions to a single address
which all moderators can log into with DMod, that should solve the
problem.
When a moderator logs into the account with DMod, all messages will be
available to him. As he accepts or rejects each message, he can delete
it from the server so that it won't appear for the next moderator who
logs in. If a moderator doesn't make a decision on a particular
message, he can tell DMod to leave it on the server so it will be
available to the next moderator to deal with.
You could test the system by setting up the DMod installations to post
to misc.test, then feeding test messages into the system for the
proposed moderators to practice on.
--
Kathy
Doug Freyburger
>
> There has been informal discussion for the past week in
> news.groups.proposals about creating a new group
I tend to phase between subscribed and unsubscribed to math and physics
newsgroups. I would subscribe at times. I do not recall posting to
sci.math so if I have it was a long time agao.
Doug Freyburger
>
> No it's not an oversight as this isn't a formal proposal.
I thought you were ready to go through the RFD process. You can go
through more informal versions if you like but I don't see enough gain
compared to entering the formal proposal process.
Kathy Morgan
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Kathy Morgan wrote:
> >
> > I am rather concerned about this. Those are posts from 8 months ago.
> > None of the current discussion has been crossposted to or mentioned on
> > sci.math. Both of the recent informal proposals include the following:
> >
> >> Distribution List:
> >> news.announce.newgroups
> >> news.groups.proposals
> >> sci.math
> >
> > but in fact were posted only to news.groups.proposals, with no pointers
> > posted in sci.math. I assume that must have been an oversight so I'll
> > post a pointer at the same time I post this.
> >
> No it's not an oversight as this isn't a formal proposal.
In that case it was deceitful to claim that you were distributing it to
the other groups. It makes me suspect that you're hoping to hash out
all the details before going to a formal proposal so that when you do go
to a formal RFD you can hope to rush it through before users of sci.math
can comment.
I'm also concerned about the deception because in a moderated group the
single most important factor is the character of the proposed
moderator(s). You seem to be working closely with them on this
proposal, and I had assumed that they participate in sci.math and would
be aware that it had not been posted there; but none of them spoke up to
correct the error.
This made me look again at sci.math, and now I'm also concerned that two
of your four proposed moderators do not appear to participate on
sci.math; I was not able to locate any posts there in the past year by
Bob Silverman or Jack Bateman. In fact, Google didn't show any posts
this year anywhere by either of them. Do they maybe use some other
handles or psuedonyms when posting?
--
Kathy, speaking only for myself
Ian Clifton
> I think the idea of a sci.math.moderated group is a good idea. But the
> trouble is, moderated groups often turn into "thought police." I would
> like to see the moderators only disallow the grossest violations.
Yes. I'd read and (probably rarely) post to a sci.math.moderated. It's
sometimes argued that the use of killfiles obviates the need for a
moderated group, but this isn't a good solution for people who dip into
a group occasionally.
> What I would like to see continue to be allowed are inane discussions
> that are on topic, including those endless discussions on whether
> 0.999... equals 1, never ending attempts to prove Fermat's last theorem,
> and the correctness or otherwise of Cantor's diagonal argument. These
> discussions were often part of the character of sci.math, and I would be
> sad to see those trolls disappear.
Agreed - in one of my favourite groups, comp.compression, the
knowledgeable regulars, often with superhuman patience, take the time to
refute the theories of the crackpots, and these threads can be very
educational as well as entertaining.
> So please, only reject those posts that are obvious spam.
>
> Also, top-posting these days is used by everyone who isn't hard core
> netiquette. Reply rudely to top posters if you must, but please don't
> moderate them down.
Mmm, not sure about this though! The case against top-posting isn't just
the finicky prejudice of zealots, top-posting and Usenet especially just
can't mix, in my opinion. A good Usenet thread can go through several
cycles of snowballing up and trimming down as the conversation evolves,
and top-posting ruins this natural progression. Perhaps top-posters
should be given one chance to mend their ways, but then, if they
persist, the moderators should harden their hearts, like Pharaoh.
Ian.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>At present, it's stated that is is a plane text newsgroup ...
Please distinguish:
- Plane: a two-dimensional surface discussed in geometry.
- Plain: not embellished.
>The frequently answered question has been about moderation software.
>It's been answered not yet a half dozen times, all within April.
If you include the answer in your drafts, that will help.
Marty
--
Co-chair of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) <http://www.big-8.org>
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
William Elliot
> William Elliot wrote:
>> Steve Bonine wrote:
>>> William Elliot wrote:
>>
>>>> sci.math.moderated Mathematics, elementary through advanced. (Moderated)
>> Our persistence is demonstrated by persisting after all these months.
>
> Plenty of moderated groups take years to organize. The hard part is
> assembling a team willing to do the moderation. The hardest part is
> being the proponent who volunteers to do the up front work of the RFD
> document and discussion plus to track the coverage on major NSPs until
> the group is well propagated.
>
> There's plenty of help available. You haven't written to the
> group-mentors list for example.
>
>> The people who'll respond the most will be sci.math kooks who don't want
>> moderation.
>
> That's what NGP is moderated for, and that's why only the board members
> have votes. I have very aggressive filters for NG so I don't see if
> you've had much discussion on that group. You don't have to pay any
> attention to that group at all if you don't want to. It can easily not
> be worth the frustration of reading the group.
>
>> The moderators have yet to concur upon a method for taking turns
>> at moderating that doesn't skip or double post, incoming posts
>
> I suggest that you do not need formal rules for that. Encourage the
> members of the team to login to the interface regularly and approve or
> reject messages. Then have a private list of moderators for discussion.
> I've seen that converge on working ad hoc principles for several groups.
>
What interface? The server is a forwarding facility that emails all new
posts to all the moderators.
> Some comments on your initial write up -
>
>> Posts are required to be on topic, sensible,
>> devoid of rudeness and vulgarity, and non-commercial.
>
> There are a lot of posts who lack writing skills, so "sensible" is of
> limited use. Mention of rudeness and vulgarity have a similar problem.
> One person's day to day speech and writing may be very rude and vulgar
> to another but still be on topic. I suggest rejecting posts that become
> abusive. If the team is generous about accepting posts but consistent
> about rejecting posts that drift into abuse the result will be very few
> attempts at abuse. It's a feedback mechanism that works very well.
>
Sensible excludes kooks. Those who have difficulty with English are
easily noticed and would likely be consider sensible. Instead of devoid
of rudeness and vulgarity should I use "PG rated"? No, the guidelines are
intentionally loose and not a legally accurate document. The guide line is
intended to stop flaming and flame wars.
>> Usenet etiquette is expected. See:
>> http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm
>
> That's one of many summaries available. Thanks for writing "expected"
> not "required". You do not want to reject posts simply for top posting.
> You may want to train newbies to trim but even then top posting need not
> be cause for rejection most of the time.
>
> To me top posting is not a reason for rejection. A complaint about top
> posting is not either, as long as it is not abusive. A complaint that
> top posting is better and that's why it was used has gotten to the point
> that I'd reject it for being off topic. No idea even to call it not
> sensible to me.
>
The guide lines are just that and not laws by which moderation is decided
nor need they be. Otherwise expect a years delay in coming up with a
detail multi-page document covering all aspects and contingencies of
moderation.
William Elliot
> William Elliot <ma...@rdrop.remove.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Alexander Bartolich wrote:
>>> We would like to have a formal RfD, followed by a formal LCC,
>>> so that we can vote on the matter. There are some guidelines
>>> how such a formal RfD should look like. That's all.
>>>
>> That's in the making. Informal version 3.0 will include the
>> boilerplate comments about creating a newsgroup. Have you
>> reference where the boilerplates can be found?
>
> The boilerplate and format information can be found at
> <http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rfd>. Why do you
> want to post yet another informal version? Why not go straight to an
> RFD?
>
Too many problems.
Kathy Morgan
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> > William Elliot wrote:
> >
> > There's plenty of help available. You haven't written to the
> > group-mentors list for example.
>
> What's that?
The group-mentors list is a group of volunteers who will help with
preparing an RFD. Information about them is at
<http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=workgroups:mentors>.
> >> The moderators have yet to concur upon a method for taking turns
> >> at moderating that doesn't skip or double post, incoming posts
> >
> > I suggest that you do not need formal rules for that. Encourage the
> > members of the team to login to the interface regularly and approve or
> > reject messages. Then have a private list of moderators for discussion.
> > I've seen that converge on working ad hoc principles for several groups.
> >
> What interface? The server is a forwarding facility that emails all new
> posts to all the moderators.
There are (at least) a couple of common ways to deal with this problem.
One is to skip the forwarding facility and just have all moderators
checking for posts at one common email address. In that case, when a
moderator has time, s/he checks for posts and deals with them. With
this method, no special arrangements need to be made when a moderator is
absent for a period of time and all moderators check for messages when
they have time. Since you are planning to use DMod, this is the easiest
solution.
Another is to classify the various types of submissions and assign each
moderator to deal with a particular class of submission. Eg., if the
post contains any of the words "Cantor" or "set theory", send the post
to Moderator A. If it contains "Riemann" or "Lebesgue" or "integral,"
send it to Moderator B. "Logic" or "truth" go to Moderator C. ".9999"
goes to Moderator D, etc. With this method, special arrangements must
be made to send the post to a different moderator when a moderator is
gone on vacation or hit by a bus. You also need some system for
checking to alert you if someone is not processing their submissions;
they may have been hit by a bus and were hurt too badly to notify you of
their absence, or their house was burglarized and the computer stolen,
or a Katrina-style disaster has them offline for months.
--
Kathy, speaking just for myself.
Doug Freyburger
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> William Elliot wrote:
>
>> There's plenty of help available. You haven't written to the
>> group-mentors list for example.
>
> What's that?
Kathy already pointed you to it on the big-8.org site. My concern was
that you had not wandered through the documentation there to recognize
the name. Please make a point of going through the docs there so you
have at least surface familiarity with the material. Failing to do so
misses help, templates, who's who on the board and other volunteer
helpers and lots of reference material. Please go to big-8.org and
read.
>>> The moderators have yet to concur upon a method for taking turns
>>> at moderating that doesn't skip or double post, incoming posts
>
>> I suggest that you do not need formal rules for that. Encourage the
>> members of the team to login to the interface regularly and approve or
>> reject messages. Then have a private list of moderators for discussion.
>> I've seen that converge on working ad hoc principles for several groups.
>
> What interface?
I am on moderation teams that use two different versions of STUMP plus a
different automated system. DMOD does the same things as STUMP in spite
of their different appearances - The way moderated newsgroups work
dictate much common functionality.
The interface in question is the moderation software running on the
receiving server. You have already mentioned you plan to running DMOD
so the server the DMOD package runs on.
> The server is a forwarding facility that emails all new
> posts to all the moderators.
There's no point to doing that once you use one of the tools like DMOD.
It does not appear that you know what DMOD does or how moderated
newsgroups work and that concerns me. There isn't much to learn and
I've already mentioned that scanning all of the docs under the big-8.org
site then reading a few in detail will push up well up the learning
curve.
>>> Posts are required to be on topic, sensible,
>>> devoid of rudeness and vulgarity, and non-commercial.
>
>> There are a lot of posts who lack writing skills, so "sensible" is of
>> limited use. Mention of rudeness and vulgarity have a similar problem.
>> One person's day to day speech and writing may be very rude and vulgar
>> to another but still be on topic. I suggest rejecting posts that become
>> abusive. If the team is generous about accepting posts but consistent
>> about rejecting posts that drift into abuse the result will be very few
>> attempts at abuse. It's a feedback mechanism that works very well.
>
> Sensible excludes kooks. Those who have difficulty with English are
> easily noticed and would likely be consider sensible.
On topic excludes kooks without the problem of poor writing skills being
a case of sensible.
> Instead of devoid
> of rudeness and vulgarity should I use "PG rated"?
You could use "civil". NGP uses it and it's an important differentiator
from NG. I think that on topic will cover it, eszpecially if the kook
posts are limited so there is less material to trigger reactions. Would
vulgarity be on topic for SMM? I think not so I think it's covered by
the on topic clause.
> The guide lines are just that and not laws by which moderation is decided
> nor need they be. Otherwise expect a years delay in coming up with a
> detail multi-page document covering all aspects and contingencies of
> moderation.
I think you're confusing the guidelines in the charter, which are not
changable once the group is chartered and the RFP document is archived,
with the current moderation policies. It is appropriate to discuss
planned moderation policies but there is no mandate to have more than a
very brief rough draft in the charter.
Kathy Morgan
> I am on moderation teams that use two different versions of STUMP plus a
> different automated system. DMOD does the same things as STUMP in spite
> of their different appearances - The way moderated newsgroups work
> dictate much common functionality.
>
> The interface in question is the moderation software running on the
> receiving server. You have already mentioned you plan to running DMOD
> so the server the DMOD package runs on.
Actually, the DMod package is installed on each moderator's PC rather
than being on a server. Normally, there would be one email address for
submissions and each moderator would check the email queue at his/her
leisure using DMod, which can be set up to automate removal of unwanted
email headers and addition of newsgroups and followups lines.
Probably the trickiest part of using DMod for team-based moderation
would be making sure they're all configured the same, so that all
approved posts have consistent headers. I think ideally they would want
to share a posting account, so that all approved messages are posted to
the same server, but I suppose that wouldn't be essential. Having
different posting accounts would make it less convenient to identify
forgeries.
I don't know why, but the smm team is proposing to forward emails from
the submission address to additional addresses for the moderators to
each check a different address. That seems to me like an unnecessary
extra complication but there certainly is no reason why they can't do it
that way.
--
Kathy
David E. Ross
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Steve Bonine wrote [also in part]:
>
>> William Elliot wrote [in part]:
>
>>> To inquire about a moderator's rejection, post to sci.math.moderated
>>> with subject "Moderator". Any reply will be by email.
>>
>> I'm assuming that such submissions won't actually appear in the newsgroup,
>> and that you're using this as a shorthand method of reaching the moderators.
>
> That's what's done with sci.math.research. There you can also reach the
> moderators by email, which would be unadvised for a newsgroup populated by
> kooks. Sci.math.research also has a back way of submitting which has been
> needed at times.
>
>> One of the things you'll run into is that many people post to Usenet these
>> days using a non-replyable email address, so if someone simply posts their
>> question to sci.math in the usual way you may not be able to reply by email.
>
> That's their loss.
I consider this unacceptable, a fatal flaw. Because of spam, I post ALL
newsgroup messages with a munged E-mail address. I will not modify it
just for one newsgroup.
Just because a newsgroup is moderated, address harvesters can still read
the messages. Moderation only controls what is written, not what is read.
Note that my degree from UCLA was in mathematics. I also did
post-graduate studies in numerical analysis. I then applied my studies
to my career as a software engineer working on mathematical software.
No, I have not participated in sci.math and likely would not participate
in sci.math.moderated because I am now retired. However, the
non-retired mathematicians that I know are sufficiently experienced with
computers that they too know about spam and do munge their E-mail
addresses when participating in ANY newsgroup.
--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>.
Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. � 1997
Bart Goddard
news:5KednVQw__EM80rW...@posted.docknet:
>>> One of the things you'll run into is that many people post to Usenet
>>> these days using a non-replyable email address, so if someone simply
>>> posts their question to sci.math in the usual way you may not be
>>> able to reply by email.
>>
>> That's their loss.
>
> I consider this unacceptable, a fatal flaw. Because of spam, I post
> ALL newsgroup messages with a munged E-mail address. I will not
> modify it just for one newsgroup.
I'm not sure you're clear on this issue. You could
_post_ to sci.math.moderated with a munged address.
But if you wanted a response from the moderators
to a question about moderation, then you'd have to
supply a real address.
When I post to a moderated group and the message gets
rejected, I just shrug and move on. I don't need to
engage the moderators in a debate about exactly why
the message was rejected and exactly how I'd have to
massage it to get it accepted. I've always assumed
that the moderators voluteer efforts were difficult
enough. I suppose I'm sympathetic because, as a
professor, I know that I spend 95% of my time dealing
with pointless issues from 5% of my students. (Most
of my office hours are spent, not dealing with math
questions, but helping a student work through his
emotional issues over his exam grade. And it sure is
that time of year again....)
Robert Bonomi
David E. Ross <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>On 4/26/10 7:04 AM, William Elliot wrote [in part]:
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Steve Bonine wrote [also in part]:
>>
>>> William Elliot wrote [in part]:
>>
>>>> To inquire about a moderator's rejection, post to sci.math.moderated
>>>> with subject "Moderator". Any reply will be by email.
>>>
>>> I'm assuming that such submissions won't actually appear in the newsgroup,
>>> and that you're using this as a shorthand method of reaching the moderators.
>>
>> That's what's done with sci.math.research. There you can also reach the
>> moderators by email, which would be unadvised for a newsgroup populated by
>> kooks. Sci.math.research also has a back way of submitting which has been
>> needed at times.
>>
>>> One of the things you'll run into is that many people post to Usenet these
>>> days using a non-replyable email address, so if someone simply posts their
>>> question to sci.math in the usual way you may not be able to reply by email.
>>
>> That's their loss.
>
>I consider this unacceptable, a fatal flaw. Because of spam, I post ALL
>newsgroup messages with a munged E-mail address. I will not modify it
>just for one newsgroup.
People that resort to munged addresses do that -only- because of incapable
filtering software on their inbound mailbox. I have -never- used a munged
address (and I participate in a sizable number of newsgroups) -- my mail-
server is a close cousin of Dave Hayes (in)famous 'psychic news reader', it
can, with virtually 100% accuracy, detect whether an incoming message
originated from 'newsreader' software, or whether it was sent by 'some other
means' (be it a 'more or less' conventional e-mail package, or something
purpose-built for spamming).
In nearly ten years of use, this filter has passed _three_ pieces of junk
mail, and missed *one* legitimate 'reply' message. This is in the face
of 'spam' messages to my 'posting' email address to the tune of several
hundred per day.
>No, I have not participated in sci.math and likely would not participate
>in sci.math.moderated because I am now retired. However, the
>non-retired mathematicians that I know are sufficiently experienced with
>computers that they too know about spam and do munge their E-mail
>addresses when participating in ANY newsgroup.
They should a competent computer scientist with regard to how to do it
'right'. <grin>
Note also: it is *entirely* practical to require a valid e-mail address
on _submissions_ to a moderated group, with the moderation software
*automatically* munging the address before publication.
Doug Freyburger
> David E. Ross <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> William Elliot wrote [in part]:
>>>> William Elliot wrote [in part]:
>
>
>>I consider this unacceptable, a fatal flaw.
When folks post using a munged address there is a presumption that they
do not expect any response. It's the price of munging and it doesn't
matter that readers haven't considered that in advance.
>>Because of spam, I post ALL
>>newsgroup messages with a munged E-mail address. I will not modify it
>>just for one newsgroup.
That is your choice and thus that makes it your loss. Of course the
simplest tactic is to post on topic so none of your posts are rejected.
As long as the posts are not rejected it doesn't matter that the
rejection notices would have been lost.
There is at least one very successful moderated newsgroup that requires
a valid address - rec.arts.tv.sf.babylon5.moderated. Many folks who
post there open a throw-away account to register then never use the
account again once they respond to the first registration hand-shake
message. There too that is your choice and thus that makes it your
loss. The proposed moderation team has not discussed using this
particular method and they are unlikely to but there is a precedent.
On a different note - I started posting before anyone ever munged an
address and I've never changed that. My wife gets several times the
amount of spam I do so to me the spam harvesting aspect of posting has
never been bad enough for me to care. Plenty of folks have much
stronger reactions to spam than I do but UseNet is definitely a minority
soucrce for harvesters.
> People that resort to munged addresses do that -only- because of incapable
> filtering software on their inbound mailbox.
That's incorrect. A lot of people mung their addresses because they
wish to actively resist getting any off-group responses and/or as a
futile strategy to reduce spam harvesting.
> I have -never- used a munged
> address (and I participate in a sizable number of newsgroups)
The only reason I don't mung is because I started posting before anyone
ever did it. But for me the historical reason is enough. I don't
expect any newcomer to UseNet to post unmunged just because someone else
posted in the 1980s.
> Note also: it is *entirely* practical to require a valid e-mail address
> on _submissions_ to a moderated group,
I already mentioned that RASTB5.moderated does this. It has better
traffic than some of the successful unmoderated newsgroups. A TV show
off the air over a decade with an active posting fan base, but I'm one
of the show's fans so I'm biased on the topic.
> with the moderation software
> *automatically* munging the address before publication.
Nice idea. Is there such a package already in existance?
Kathy Morgan
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> > with the moderation software
> > *automatically* munging the address before publication.
>
> Nice idea. Is there such a package already in existance?
Brian Edmonds' Robomod provides for that. A poster can register using a
valid address to be automatically changed to <nos...@please.invalid>.
--
Kathy
David E. Ross
>
> When folks post using a munged address there is a presumption that they
> do not expect any response. It's the price of munging and it doesn't
> matter that readers haven't considered that in advance.
Not true at all!
I indeed expect responses to my newsgroup postings, but I expect them to
appear in the newsgroups where I post the messages. I don't want
replies arriving via E-mail.
My actual E-mail address can be determined by examining the source of my
newsgroup message, in the Organization header-field. Even that requires
a human to evaluate the header-field's content since it does not appear
in the form <na...@domain.com>.
In actual E-mail, I do not munge my address. I generally know the
recipients of my E-mail messages and trust them not to be involved with
spamming.
My issue with the draft RFC is that, for a one-on-one communication with
a moderator, E-mail -- without a munged addresse -- should be used.
Postings to a newsgroup should be targeted to public viewing, not for
one-on-one communication. As worded, one-on-one communication with the
moderator of sci.math.moderated, however, would be by sending a
newsgroup message; this is what I find unacceptable.
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> My issue with the draft RFC is that, for a one-on-one communication with
> a moderator, E-mail -- without a munged addresse -- should be used.
> Postings to a newsgroup should be targeted to public viewing, not for
> one-on-one communication. As worded, one-on-one communication with the
> moderator of sci.math.moderated, however, would be by sending a
> newsgroup message; this is what I find unacceptable.
Would you find it acceptable if William had written the following?
# To inquire about a moderator's rejection, mail to sci-math-moderated at
# moderators.isc.org with subject "Moderator". Any reply will be by email.
--
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> -- Charter and moderation policy
Please, do not do this.
The charter is engraved in stone. The moderation policy can be changed
anytime, without prior notice. Please, make a clear distinction between
intrinsic characteristics of the group, and technical details of your
organization.
> [...]
> To inquire about a moderator's rejection, post to sci.math.moderated
> with subject "Moderator". Any reply will be by email.
In my opinion this rule is incomplete. What happens when the inquirer
replies to the reply, i.e. sends a message with the subject "Re: Moder-
ator"?
--
David E. Ross
Yes, because it would mean communicating via E-mail, not by newsgroup
message. The latter should be used for one-to-many communication, not
for one-to-one.
Alexander Bartolich
> On 4/28/10 6:23 PM, Alexander Bartolich wrote:
>> David E. Ross wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> My issue with the draft RFC is that, for a one-on-one communication with
>>> a moderator, E-mail -- without a munged addresse -- should be used.
>>> Postings to a newsgroup should be targeted to public viewing, not for
>>> one-on-one communication. As worded, one-on-one communication with the
>>> moderator of sci.math.moderated, however, would be by sending a
>>> newsgroup message; this is what I find unacceptable.
>>
>> Would you find it acceptable if William had written the following?
>>
>> # To inquire about a moderator's rejection, mail to sci-math-moderated at
>> # moderators.isc.org with subject "Moderator". Any reply will be by email.
>
> Yes, because it would mean communicating via E-mail, not by newsgroup
> message. The latter should be used for one-to-many communication, not
> for one-to-one.
Oh. Honestly, that's not the reply I expected. I sincerely apologize
for asking a trick question instead of talking straightforward.
I suggest that we all calm down, and postpone discussion of the moderation
policy and other technical details to a later stage.
Ciao
Alexander.
Steve Bonine
> David E. Ross wrote:
>>>> My issue with the draft RFC is that, for a one-on-one communication with
>>>> a moderator, E-mail -- without a munged addresse -- should be used.
>>>> Postings to a newsgroup should be targeted to public viewing, not for
>>>> one-on-one communication. As worded, one-on-one communication with the
>>>> moderator of sci.math.moderated, however, would be by sending a
>>>> newsgroup message; this is what I find unacceptable.
>>>
>>> Would you find it acceptable if William had written the following?
>>>
>>> # To inquire about a moderator's rejection, mail to sci-math-moderated at
>>> # moderators.isc.org with subject "Moderator". Any reply will be by email.
>>
>> Yes, because it would mean communicating via E-mail, not by newsgroup
>> message. The latter should be used for one-to-many communication, not
>> for one-to-one.
>
> Oh. Honestly, that's not the reply I expected. I sincerely apologize
> for asking a trick question instead of talking straightforward.
Although there were aspects of "trick question", I do think that your
approach brought out an interesting concept. Although the email and the
posting result in exactly the same result, it is significant that
different client software is being used to accomplish that result. In
today's Usenet world, it is likely that the news reader client will be
configured with a non-replyable email address but that the email client
will be configured with a replyable email address. Thus it's quite a
bit more likely that a moderator will be able to respond to a question
submitted using the questioner's email client, even though in both cases
the email ends up in the moderation queue pretending to be a submission
for the newsgroup.
The thing that's more important to me is that the folks who are
proposing the newsgroup feel the need to reinvent the wheel. There's a
procedure in place to handle this issue; it has been in place for
decades; it works fine for hundreds of moderated newsgroups. So I put
the fact that they're unwilling to use it together with other tiny
scraps of information -- they're playing with the system by not
submitting a formal RFD, two of the moderators show no posting history,
they are going out of their way not to involve participants of sci.math
in the discussion. When I add up all of these little scraps and combine
them with my impression that sci.math doesn't have a problem with trolls
but instead with "kooks", I begin to wonder what the real motivation
might be to create a moderated group.
> I suggest that we all calm down, and postpone discussion of the moderation
> policy and other technical details to a later stage.
I hope everyone's already calm. The fact that folks, including myself,
are expressing their opinion doesn't imply that they're upset.
But we've been discussing this "informal proposal" for more than eight
months. I would really have expected the moderation details to have
solidified some time ago.
Doug Freyburger
> Doug Freyburger wrote [in part]:
There's no need to include the "in part" bit. The RFCs on UseNet
posting have suggested trimming out any part not responded to for longer
than 99+% of folks have been on-line.
>> When folks post using a munged address there is a presumption that they
>> do not expect any response. It's the price of munging and it doesn't
>> matter that readers haven't considered that in advance.
>
> Not true at all!
On the one hand this is a stance that the two of us as users and
posters can validly disagree on without any issue. It's a matter of
opinion and there's no requirement that we agree on it.
On the other hand I didn't just list my own personal opinion on the
topic. I'm on a few moderation teams and it's agreed on among those
teams that none of the team members have to put any effort into
unmunging addresses. Some team members do it sometimes but it's
never expected. I'm sure the policy is not universal among moderation
teams across UseNet but it's common enough that no poster should be
surprised at any one moderation team adopting it.
> I indeed expect responses to my newsgroup postings, but I expect them to
> appear in the newsgroups where I post the messages.
The method to ensure that is to always post on topic and civily.
There's no mystery in that. If there's never a rejection then there's
no need to correspond with the moderators.
> I don't want replies arriving via E-mail.
I've already informed you of the policy of some moderation teams.
It's interesting how you responded to the question by Alexander
Bartolich. What he wrote has been the standard policy for
correspondance to the moderation team of all moderated groups on UseNet
ever since the first one was chartered. It would be required in the
implementation should the group be approved. The RFD might even be
rejected if it's not included because it's a universal among all
moderated newsgroups.
There is a precedent from sci.math.research to have this additional
contact method. As a redundant and additional method.
You've already posted that you do not object to the original standard
method that would be required anyways. Now that it's phrased as a
redundant contact method does your objection still hold? Note that my
question isn't quite the same as Alexander B's. He asked if you
approve of the standard method and you posted that you do. I'm now
asking if you object to the Subject: line method as a redundant path.
Because there's precedent I (writing as someone without a vote) do not
object as long as the standard method is implemented (writing as someone
on more than one moderation team all of which have that in place).
> Postings to a newsgroup should be targeted to public viewing, not for
> one-on-one communication.
My objection is the failure mode involved - Errors in the process could
get those private messages posted.
Also posting an article effectively makes it public not private so any
error in the process would not be held to the same standards. The
proponent team seems to be unaware of the original standard for direct
contact so I wonder if they are aware of that issue.
Since their RFD focuses on kooks this would end up giving them the
option of posting their private messages as well as their public ones.
I would not want such a revenge group to be chartered.
Based on this discussion I now object to the Subject: line method being
included in the charter in spite of the precedent of sci.math.research.
I want them to use the standard method and not be an exception to the
standard.
Kathy Morgan
> Although there were aspects of "trick question", I do think that your
> approach brought out an interesting concept. Although the email and the
> posting result in exactly the same result, it is significant that
> different client software is being used to accomplish that result. In
> today's Usenet world, it is likely that the news reader client will be
> configured with a non-replyable email address but that the email client
> will be configured with a replyable email address. Thus it's quite a
> bit more likely that a moderator will be able to respond to a question
> submitted using the questioner's email client, even though in both cases
> the email ends up in the moderation queue pretending to be a submission
> for the newsgroup.
Actually, I think there's a very good chance that the questions would
not ever get to the moderation queue and would not ever be seen by the
moderators. One of the easy ways to prevent email spam showing up in a
moderator's queue is to drop all submissions that do not include a
"Newsgroups: " header. Email questions or appeals sent by an email
client to sci-math-...@moderators.isc.org would not have a
Newsgroups header and so might be dropped prior to reaching any human.
Email addresses and/or mailing lists today are cheap (usually free) and
easy to come by. I see no valid reason why this team won't provide a
moderator contact address different from the submission address.
--
Kathy
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... they're playing with the system by not
>submitting a formal RFD ...
I helped to invent "the system," such as it is.
I don't mind them developing their ideas informally.
There are no deadlines for how long a proposal may
stay in an informal stage--nor even in the formal
stage. The one clock we have starts when the
proponent and board agree on the Final RFD / Last
Call for Comments (LCC); the board publishes the
LCC in its own name and promises the proponents
that a decision will be forthcoming on it as soon
as possible. If the LCC is agreed on by consensus,
that is the shortest time period; a formal vote
could take longer; and one LCC might be superseded
by another if something comes up in the final
five-day discussion period following the publicaction
of the first LCC--which starts another five-day
"Last Call for Comments."
>> I suggest that we all calm down, and postpone discussion of the moderation
>> policy and other technical details to a later stage.
>I hope everyone's already calm. The fact that folks, including myself,
>are expressing their opinion doesn't imply that they're upset.
I'm not upset by the discussion. Who knows who else
may benefit from it by listening in?
>But we've been discussing this "informal proposal" for more than eight
>months. I would really have expected the moderation details to have
>solidified some time ago.
Proponents are allowed to go at their own pace. Some move
more quickly than others. That's life.
Mark Kramer
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Although there were aspects of "trick question", I do think that your
>approach brought out an interesting concept. Although the email and the
>posting result in exactly the same result,
That is not true. A posting results in an email appearing in the newsgroup
submission mailbox, containing a Newsgroups header. An email to the moderator
results in an email in the moderator's mailbox, usually NOT containing a
Newsgroups header. However, the Newsgroups header is a canard, since that
header is undefined in email and thus has NO meaning.
>it is significant that
>different client software is being used to accomplish that result.
That is also, as a generalization, not true. I can use the same email client
to send a newsgroup submission to the submission address that I use to send
an email to the moderator's mailbox.
>When I add up all of these little scraps and combine
>them with my impression that sci.math doesn't have a problem with trolls
>but instead with "kooks", I begin to wonder what the real motivation
>might be to create a moderated group.
Yes, they're just out to game the system. Of course.
Mark Kramer
>> appear in the newsgroups where I post the messages.
>
>The method to ensure that is to always post on topic and civily.
>There's no mystery in that. If there's never a rejection then there's
>no need to correspond with the moderators.
You two are talking past each other. Or one of you is.
David E. Ross is clearly (at least as I read it) referring to public
responses to articles he posts to news when he said "I indeed expect
responses to my newsgroup postings ... in the newsgroups where I post
[them]". Posting "on topic and civily" has nothing to do with that.
Posting with a munged email address does.
>> I don't want replies arriving via E-mail.
>
>I've already informed you of the policy of some moderation teams.
Again, "replies" are messages posted by readers of the article he has
posted, and the policy of some moderation teams is completely irrelevant
to this. I know of NO moderation team that mandates that posters accept
or even desire email responses to their postings. I know of no moderation
team that can mandate that even their own moderation status messages be
accepted via email.
>It's interesting how you responded to the question by Alexander
>Bartolich. What he wrote has been the standard policy for
>correspondance to the moderation team of all moderated groups on UseNet
>ever since the first one was chartered.
The proposed "post a message with Subject: MODERATION" has NOT been
standard policy since the "first one was chartered". The fact that this
method was proposed as THE way to contact the moderators means that
the method which truly has been the standard for decades (email to a
moderator directly) is not being proposed for this group.
The fact is that David E. Ross objects to this new method, and I find it
disturbing as well. There is no reason not to use the standard method
since it prevents trivial mistakes from posting private messages. Any
moderator who pulls private messages from his personal mailbox for
posting has clearly stepped out of bounds.
>It would be required in the implementation should the group be approved.
There is no board policy requiring any specific method of contacting the
moderator. It is up to the board to vote on the proposal as it stands;
they cannot add pieces at whim and force the proponents to do it. If the
proponents hold fast to the nonstandard method, the board gets to decide
if the proposal is flawed enough to merit rejection despite the apparent
support and need for the group.
>The RFD might even be
>rejected if it's not included because it's a universal among all
>moderated newsgroups.
Again, there is no board policy that lists that as a reason for rejection.
>You've already posted that you do not object to the original standard
>method that would be required anyways.
"The original standard method" was not included. That it would be "required"
is your opinion alone.
>> Postings to a newsgroup should be targeted to public viewing, not for
>> one-on-one communication.
>
>My objection is the failure mode involved - Errors in the process could
>get those private messages posted.
You are saying the same thing.
>Also posting an article effectively makes it public not private so any
>error in the process would not be held to the same standards.
Uhhh, yes it would. If you publish a policy that says "postings with
the subject 'MODERATION' will be treated as private communication to the
moderator" then failing to follow that policy would result in the same
outcry that pulling private email from a private mailbox would. Whether
either has any effect on anything depends on the moderator.
>Since their RFD focuses on kooks this would end up giving them the
>option of posting their private messages as well as their public ones.
No more so than having a different mailbox altogether. The moderator is
just as able to post a message out of a moderator-question mailbox as he
is from a submissions mailbox. And he's just as much in the wrong for
posting a message with the subject "MODERATION" to the newsgroup after
he says such messages are the means of communicating with the moderator
about moderation policy or issues.
>I would not want such a revenge group to be chartered.
You have information that supports the claim this is a revenge group?
Mark Kramer
Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>William Elliot wrote:
>> [...]
>> -- Charter and moderation policy
>
>Please, do not do this.
>
>The charter is engraved in stone. The moderation policy can be changed
>anytime, without prior notice.
While the "charter", as such, is "written once read many", the effective
charter is as changable as the moderation policy. Should the moderator
decide to accept cake recipes on day two of the group's existance, there
is nothing the board or the readers can do.
>Please, make a clear distinction between
>intrinsic characteristics of the group, and technical details of your
>organization.
The only two intrinsic properties of a newsgroup I can think of are "name"
and "moderation status". The rest is all up to the moderator.
>> To inquire about a moderator's rejection, post to sci.math.moderated
>> with subject "Moderator". Any reply will be by email.
>
>In my opinion this rule is incomplete. What happens when the inquirer
>replies to the reply, i.e. sends a message with the subject "Re: Moder-
>ator"?
In my opinion this rule is just flat out bad. Don't argue nits over a rule
that shouldn't exist, just say it's bad and get rid of it.
Thomas Lee
Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> writes>news:83isb0...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Until I took a look, I didn't realize that the first version of this
>> informal proposal dates from August of last year. I have to wonder
>> whether, if this group of individuals can't manage to produce an
>> actual RFD in eight months, is there enough commitment to moderate a
>> newsgroup on a day-to-day basis?
>
>You could wonder that, but I suppose that, if we'd been
>quick about it, you'd be wondering how well such a group
>would run, given that it was slapped together in a rush.
Quite the opposite. If you had worked out quickly how all this was going
to be done it might show more likelyhood of success.
>Seriously, are we going to go through this nonsense again
>with every "event" causing a problem and with every
>"exact opposite event" causing some other problem?
What you do need to do is to convince the B8MB that you have a cleaer
idea how you plan to make moderation work and that there is some level
of support for the group. Thus far, I don't really see either.
>If there's only one moderator, then he couldn't possibly
>do the work.
Depends on the group, where the posters live and on posting volumes. In
general, I'm not keen in single moderator propopsals.
> If there's several moderators, then they
>can't possibly function together as a team.
Experience with other moderated groups, eg news.groups.proposals
suggests otherwise.
> If only
>ascii is allowed, then legitimate users can't post.
That requirement is one being asked for - if it doesn't work for your
users then drop it.
> If
>many encodings are allowed, then the software and/or
>moderators can't handle it.
Be strict in what you send and generous in what you accept.
> If there's lively discussion
>then we can't move forward because there's too many
>unanswered questions. If there's not enough discussion,
>then we can't move forward because we don't have enough
>input.
I am not clear on the issue here.
>Yeah, we've been at this since August, and the chief
>reason why is this "no matter what you say we'll find
>a problem with it" game.
For me there are really two key questions.
1. Is there support for the group - if we build it will folks be there
to use it. I am not yet convinced on this point.
2. Is the workable solution for moderation. Do you have the people,
policies and software/tools to carry out your chosen policy. Again, it
sounds like not.
> No matter what X is, it's
>too long, too small, too restrictive, too liberal,
>too general, too specific,... And yeah, I know it's part
>of the lore and part of the initiation and hazing, but
>surely 4 threads of this is enough...unless you'd like
>a few more Augusts to pass by first.
I want making groups to be as easy as possible, but there have to be a
few steps you do need to take to satisfy the B8MB.
>> The other thing that's missing is any support for the newsgroup.
>> Unless Google's search mechanism for sci.math is hiding them from me,
>> I see no articles from participants in sci.math
>
>I went to advance search, typed in "moderated" in the words
>blank, "sci.math" in the group blank and set the date for
>Jan. 1 2009 to today, and got many hits. Here's one with
>187 posts including 38 different authors.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/27obon5
>
>Here's one with 272 posts and 29 authors
>
>http://tinyurl.com/2c5at42
I do not recall many of these folks posting HERE!
>
>> Which brings me to my last question . . . the actual moderation
>> platform was a question when this newsgroup was first proposed. Do
>> you have that question resolved?
>
>Yes. This was asked and answered in the last thread and probably
>in the one before that.
You may have, but I can't recall it.
>Bottom line: We're mathematicians. There's probably no
>OCD, anal-retentive, detail-crunching group on the planet.
>We've been as thorough as is humanly possible. If we weren't,
>you'd be having trouble with that. Since we are, you're
>having trouble because it took time.
Speaking for myself, I don't recally care how long it took, just whether
you have the answers.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee - t...@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
Steve Bonine
> For me there are really two key questions.
>
> 1. Is there support for the group - if we build it will folks be there
> to use it. I am not yet convinced on this point.
>
> 2. Is the workable solution for moderation. Do you have the people,
> policies and software/tools to carry out your chosen policy. Again, it
> sounds like not.
I notice that the proponents for sci.math.moderated have gone quiet.
Maybe you have thrown up your hands and decided that there's no way to
satisfy the bizarre people who create newsgroups in the big 8. I draw
your attention to the creation process for comp.mobile.ipad, which was
proposed on March 12 and created on March 23. During that short
discussion period several changes were proposed and adopted in the
proposal including a change in the newsgroup name. This illustrates that
it need not be a difficult or time consuming process to get a newsgroup
created in the big-8.
I offer these recommendations if you're still interested in creating
sci.math.moderated.
1. Read the material on the board wiki on the newsgroup-creation
process. It's concise and clear. If you have questions, contact the
board or group-mentors via email.
2. Write and submit a formal RFD. Remember that it's not a math proof;
it need not be perfect. The fact that you've done it will illustrate
commitment to the process, which translates into the impression that
people will be there to moderate the newsgroup on a day-by-day basis.
3. Get people to post in news.groups.proposals that they will use the
proposed newsgroup. Failing that, harvest MIDs for specific statements
of support made in sci.math.
4. Respond to questions in a factual and non-defensive manner. Don't
provide conflicting answers; talk among yourselves and either respond
individually in a consistent way or appoint one person to speak for the
group.
5. In a week or two, it will be obvious that the discussion is "done".
Submit a second RFD that includes a tabulation of the support shown
during the discussion period. If there are few changes between the new
RFD and the original one, make this the LCC. If you don't understand
"LCC", see step 1.
As Thomas said, there are only two things that need to be demonstrated
-- people to use the newsgroup, and people to moderate it. It is easy
to demonstrate these two things to the board, if indeed they do exist.
Bart Goddard
@mid.individual.net:
> I notice that the proponents for sci.math.moderated have gone quiet.
> Maybe you have thrown up your hands and decided that there's no way to
> satisfy the bizarre people who create newsgroups in the big 8.
And this is the heart of my complaint. You take a datum,
and draw some bizarre, illogical conclusion. There are
a zillion reasons why we might have gone quiet, or even
why we haven't gone quiet but you perceive that we have,
yet, for no sensible reason, you decide the most likely
explanation is that we've thrown up our hands.
If you want to know why we've gone quiet, (which we
haven't) just ask. (Answer: We haven't, you're just
misperceiving.)
> I draw
> your attention to the creation process for comp.mobile.ipad, which was
> proposed on March 12 and created on March 23.
A "comp" group? You mean people who already know lots
about how computer stuff works? Indeed, people who've
created newsgroups before? Nice comparision. We have
one guy who was willing to do the computer stuff to
set things up, and he had to learn most everything from
scratch. The rest of us all made statements like "if
someone else will set it up, I'm willing to moderate."
William is doing what he thinks he's supposed to do next.
If he's wrong about it, it's because someone told him
wrong. And he's probably happy to change it if someone
will speak rationally to him. It's not constructive to
flood the thread with comments like, "I've noticed that
the proponents use a lot of verbs in their sentences,
which makes me wonder about their sexual deviance."
Frankly, I was surprised that this thread had the word
"informal" in the header, as I thought we were ready for
the big time. But William is doing this, so it's his
call about when and what to do. The rest of us will
work with it.
Alexander Bartolich
> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> I notice that the proponents for sci.math.moderated have gone quiet.
>> Maybe you have thrown up your hands and decided that there's no way to
>> satisfy the bizarre people who create newsgroups in the big 8.
This is a humorous remark. The humour is not directed at you.
In the strictest sense, the list of "bizarre people who create news-
groups in the big 8" includes only the members of Big 8 Management
Board. However, it is not entirely unreasonably to include the moder-
ators of news.groups.proposals.
Thus Steve is making a joke about himself.
> And this is the heart of my complaint. You take a datum,
> and draw some bizarre, illogical conclusion. There are
> a zillion reasons why we might have gone quiet, or even
> why we haven't gone quiet but you perceive that we have,
> yet, for no sensible reason, you decide the most likely
> explanation is that we've thrown up our hands.
First scenario: You are incapable of sensing humour because you are like
Mr. Spock (in the original series). In that case, however, it is not
logical to consider a sentence starting with "maybe" to be a conclusion.
Second scenario: With regard to human communication you always assume
the worst case. Here that would mean that Steve's remark must be under-
stood to be pure, merciless sarcasm. That is, he is making fun of people
he considers to be slackers that repeatedly fail at a trivial task. In
that case, however, your reaction is again not logical. Complaing to
sadists about unjust behaviour just gives them satisfaction.
> [...]
> If you want to know why we've gone quiet, (which we
> haven't) just ask. (Answer: We haven't, you're just
> misperceiving.)
Your sentences do not start with "maybe". They also lack any trace of
disclaimer phrases like "in my opinion", "I think", "as far as I see",
etc. (As far as I see your posts are also free of any humour. But this
might be my fault.)
There is a wisdom known as Postel's Law (John Postel is the name behind
RFC 761): "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept
from others."
Do you think a future moderator should heed his advice?
--
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>5. In a week or two, it will be obvious that the discussion is "done".
> Submit a second RFD that includes a tabulation of the support shown
>during the discussion period. If there are few changes between the new
>RFD and the original one, make this the LCC. If you don't understand
>"LCC", see step 1.
Here's the link to that page, FWIW.
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:last_call
Bart Goddard
$1...@news.albasani.net:
> Bart Goddard wrote:
>> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I notice that the proponents for sci.math.moderated have gone quiet.
>>> Maybe you have thrown up your hands and decided that there's no way
to
>>> satisfy the bizarre people who create newsgroups in the big 8.
>
> This is a humorous remark. The humour is not directed at you.
>
> In the strictest sense, the list of "bizarre people who create news-
> groups in the big 8" includes only the members of Big 8 Management
> Board. However, it is not entirely unreasonably to include the moder-
> ators of news.groups.proposals.
>
> Thus Steve is making a joke about himself.
Apparently, neither you nor Steve understand my role. As I
said, the group of us who've agreed to moderate all said
"If someone else will set it up, we'll act as moderators."
The _only_ person who is in a position to "throw up his
hands" is William.
As for humor, all I can advise is "don't give up the
day job."
> First scenario: You are incapable of sensing humour because you are
like
> Mr. Spock (in the original series). In that case, however, it is not
> logical to consider a sentence starting with "maybe" to be a
> conclusion.
Um...seriously...do you really want to play "logic" with a pile
of mathematicians? The sentence may start with "maybe" but,
at very least, it's a proposed conclusion and, in reality,
it's a damning accusation which we must (presumably) deal with.
It's easy to handle direct questions and accusations.
Innuendo is a much more serious problem, no matter whether
the intent is humourous.
> Second scenario: With regard to human communication you always assume
> the worst case.
<Shrug> I complain about someone always assuming the worst
scenerio and the response is to aim the same accusation at
me. Clever.
> Your sentences do not start with "maybe". They also lack any trace of
> disclaimer phrases like "in my opinion", "I think", "as far as I see",
> etc. (As far as I see your posts are also free of any humour. But this
> might be my fault.)
Maybe it is your fault. You don't seem to allow that possibility.
Indeed, how many of your sentences start with "maybe", etc.?
> There is a wisdom known as Postel's Law (John Postel is the name behind
> RFC 761): "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you
accept
> from others."
>
> Do you think a future moderator should heed his advice?
I've made myself abundantly clear on that point. Besides the
proponents, there are two sorts of people posting on these
threads. 1. Those who care about whether the creation of
sci.math.mod is a good idea and 2. Those who pretend to care
about wheterh the creation of sci.math.mod is a good idea.
(In my humble opinion) it's clear to most readers who the
pretenders are. The non-pretenders have been attentive and
know the answers to the questions that the pretenders have
been asking.
If one sincerely cares, then my only request is that
ones actions support this.