Informal Proposal To Change Status of news.groups.proposals to robo-moderation
Jim Riley
enforcing civility. This is not working, and I think it is time to
explore other methods of moderation.
I propose that the following form of robo-moderation be used:
1. Subject tags to keep threads based on active proposals.
This would keep out random spam, articles about "the news".
2. Strict limits on cross-posting, limited to exactly one other
affected group.
This would keep out other random threads, attempts to cross-post to
auk, alt.config, etc.
3. Volume controls:
For example, a poster might be limited to 25,000 bytes in a 24-hour
period (including headers, etc.). This in itself would encourage
trimming of quoted material, discourage long-sigs, etc.
Once the volume threshold was reached, then the poster would be
limited to some percentage of total volume, say 20%.
--
Jim Riley
Marcel Beaudoin
news:13il7r8...@corp.supernews.com:
> The moderators supposed function is to keep the discussion focused, by
> enforcing civility. This is not working, and I think it is time to
> explore other methods of moderation.
Jim, before anyone can really comment on these, perhaps you could provide
examples of where *you* think the moderators have erred in their duties.
I also question why you have done this here. Isn't this something that
would have been much better served by bringing this up to the moderators
attention themselves.
--
Marcel
Steve Bonine
> The moderators supposed function is to keep the discussion focused, by
> enforcing civility. This is not working,
Personally, I think it's working pretty well, but my perspective is far
from objective. I'd be interested in candid feedback from participants
in the group.
Speaking as a moderator, there's quite a bit of work that goes into
moderating this group. If a solution other than hand moderation can be
implemented that eliminates this time and effort and still results in
meeting the stated goals of the newsgroup, that would be great. The
problem I see with robo-moderation is that it doesn't address the basic
issue of keeping the discussion focused. Since the parameters of the
robo-moderation need to be public, anyone with motivation to disrupt the
discussion can submit articles that will be accepted. If the
participants here have sufficient discipline to ignore such material,
and don't mind having it appear in the newsgroup, then robo-moderation
is an option.
and I think it is time to
> explore other methods of moderation.
In that exploration, we need to think about how such robo-moderation
would be implemented, who would implement the programming, and who would
host the server. I believe that some of the suggestions below are
beyond the capability of current off-the-shelf moderation software.
> I propose that the following form of robo-moderation be used:
>
> 1. Subject tags to keep threads based on active proposals.
>
> This would keep out random spam, articles about "the news".
I suppose that if the initial article on a given topic had the subject
tag, and the moderation software was smart enough to find it in replies,
that this might work reasonably well for discussion that begins with an
RFD. The original purpose of the newsgroup was to give proponents a
place to propose newsgroups, but since we've had precious few proponents
lately, I can't really object on the basis of newbies getting their
posts returned because they don't understand the rules.
> 2. Strict limits on cross-posting, limited to exactly one other
> affected group.
Define "affected group" in a way that could be implemented in a
programmed solution. The only way I could see of doing this is to have
a table of "affected groups" with an entry for each thread and a list of
permissible groups for that thread.
If robo-modertion is used, the only realistic solution would be to
implement a rule of no crossposting. If you allow one arbitrary group,
it opens the door to abuse. I don't think that prohibiting crossposting
would have a significant affect on the discussion.
> This would keep out other random threads, attempts to cross-post to
> auk, alt.config, etc.
But it wouldn't address the issue of adding crossposts over the
objection of the author of the material.
> 3. Volume controls:
>
> For example, a poster might be limited to 25,000 bytes in a 24-hour
> period (including headers, etc.). This in itself would encourage
> trimming of quoted material, discourage long-sigs, etc.
>
> Once the volume threshold was reached, then the poster would be
> limited to some percentage of total volume, say 20%.
I certainly support this idea, although again someone is going to have
to "teach" a robo-moderation program to enforce it (unless this
functionality already exists in a system that I've not seen). I would
rather see the limit based both on number of articles submitted and
size; if it was based on size then someone could flood the newsgroup
with large numbers of tiny articles.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>Jim Riley wrote:
>> The moderators supposed function is to keep the discussion focused, by
>> enforcing civility. This is not working,
>Personally, I think it's working pretty well, but my perspective is far
>from objective. I'd be interested in candid feedback from participants
>in the group.
I'm happy with the general atmosphere of n.g.p.
I'm very grateful to the mods for all the work they're doing.
Making judgment calls is hard--but that's what humans are
good at and computers aren't.
Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) -- http://www.big-8.org
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
Aatu Koskensilta
> The moderators supposed function is to keep the discussion focused, by
> enforcing civility. This is not working, and I think it is time to
> explore other methods of moderation.
What is it exactly you find not working? Keeping the discussion focused?
Keeping it focused by enforcing civility? Enforcing civility?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Aatu Koskensilta
> Jim Riley wrote:
>> The moderators supposed function is to keep the discussion focused, by
>> enforcing civility. This is not working,
>
> Personally, I think it's working pretty well, but my perspective is far
> from objective. I'd be interested in candid feedback from participants
> in the group.
I've been unable to do any substantial moderation in a while, so perhaps my
perspective is not entirely skewed; it appears to me that due to virtually
total lack of proposals coming from someone not on the board -- or from Jim
Riley -- news.groups.proposals has begun to look not entirely unlike
news.groups.moderated.
I'd wager if we were to implement a robo-moderation solution
news.groups.proposals would, for all purposes, become news.groups.moderated.
Given that the stated purpose of news.groups.proposals is to offer an
incivility free place, in contrast to the horribly toxic atmosphere of
news.groups, for discussions concerning group proposals I don't really see
what advantage this would offer. After all, whatever problems news.groups
has, or is perceived to have, are mostly not due to cross-posting, or some
single individual posting volumes of stuff (at least at the moment, on the
server I use).
On the technical side, implementing the filtering in, say, Perl would in
itself be a rather trivial task -- though, as always with coding, getting it
to production quality stage would indubitably take a surprising amount of
time. However, I don't have the foggiest (and am obviously too lazy to do
any research to find out) how flexible current robo-moderation packages are,
and what sort of APIs they expose, how well they're documented, and so on.
It's also obvious whoever did the actual coding would have to have
experience with automated news posting, testing, etc.
>> 2. Strict limits on cross-posting, limited to exactly one other
>> affected group.
>
> Define "affected group" in a way that could be implemented in a
> programmed solution. The only way I could see of doing this is to have
> a table of "affected groups" with an entry for each thread and a list of
> permissible groups for that thread.
That's pretty much the only viable option. The most obvious solution would
be to allow cross-posting in, say, two groups listed in the distribution
section of an RFD. I believe Tim's currently processing RFDs in XML, so the
extraction of that information could probably be automated.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<qXIWi.246487$D97.1...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>:
I'm going to give my answers to some questions you asked another poster.
Are the moderators of n.g.p.:
> Keeping the discussion focused?
I think they're doing a good job on this.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
The incoming material from which they select is
uneven in quality. Some posters are more focused
than others. I have moderated myself many times,
starting to reply, then tossing the draft in the
bit bucket, because I thought that my reply was
definitely off-topic for the thread.
Thread drift and thread hijacking happen.
>Keeping it focused by enforcing civility?
> Enforcing civility?
I think the mods have had to make some tough calls
here.
I am not unhappy with the stuff that I've seen
here, although some of it is on the borderline
of civility.
I think it's OK for people to disagree.
I don't like it when they are disagreeable and
make ad hominem accusations. But I don't think
it is fair to ask the mods to filter things to
MY taste. They get to make the tough calls,
and I'm very grateful for their willingness to
do so.
I'm not doing any filtering in n.g.p. If the
mods let it through, I read it, even though it
may be from someone whom I do not read elsewhere.
To return to Jim's original question: I don't
think any conceivable script written with current
technology could do for n.g.p what the human
mods are doing. FWIW, I also doubt that there
will ever be an AI assistant that could take
their place (but this, of course, is a religious
and/or philosophical issue that goes far beyond
the scope of Jim's suggestion).
Marty
Kathy Morgan
> The moderators supposed function is to keep the discussion focused, by
> enforcing civility.
Actually, enforcing civility is only part of the moderators' function.
Posting guidelines include:
* Off topic articles, as described above and specifically including:
- Discussion of proposals relating to other hierarchies, such as
alt.* or regional hierarchies.
- Articles about "the news" or other world events.
- General discussions not relating to a specific active proposal.
* Articles with unacceptable content, such as:
- HTML
- Copyright violations
- Excessive quoting
- Threats and/or advocating violence
- Binaries, except PGP signatures, X-Face headers, and other
ancillary meta-data
- Personal and/or commercial advertisements, including chain
letters, money-making schemes, and EMP spam.
Posts should contribute to the discussion of an active proposal. If the
article is mostly off topic or argumentive (even if worded in a civil
fashion), then it doesn't contribute to the discussion of a proposal.
--
Kathy, speaking for myself
Jim Riley
<marcel....@gmail.com> wrote:
>in news.groups.proposals, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in
>news:13il7r8...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> The moderators supposed function is to keep the discussion focused, by
>> enforcing civility. This is not working, and I think it is time to
>> explore other methods of moderation.
>
>Jim, before anyone can really comment on these, perhaps you could provide
>examples of where *you* think the moderators have erred in their duties.
I would not characterize them as having erred in their duties, but
rather that it was a mistake setting out their particular duties in
the way that it was done.
I am not arguing whether they are doing a good job or not of enforcing
civility, but rather whether that the enforcement of civility is
actually contributing to the actual discussion and debate of
proposals.
>I also question why you have done this here. Isn't this something that
>would have been much better served by bringing this up to the moderators
>attention themselves.
The moderators are performing a role set out by the B8MB when this
groups was created.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
>Jim Riley wrote:
>> The moderators supposed function is to keep the discussion focused, by
>> enforcing civility. This is not working,
>
>Personally, I think it's working pretty well, but my perspective is far
>from objective. I'd be interested in candid feedback from participants
>in the group.
>
>Speaking as a moderator, there's quite a bit of work that goes into
>moderating this group. If a solution other than hand moderation can be
>implemented that eliminates this time and effort and still results in
>meeting the stated goals of the newsgroup, that would be great. The
>problem I see with robo-moderation is that it doesn't address the basic
>issue of keeping the discussion focused. Since the parameters of the
>robo-moderation need to be public, anyone with motivation to disrupt the
>discussion can submit articles that will be accepted. If the
>participants here have sufficient discipline to ignore such material,
>and don't mind having it appear in the newsgroup, then robo-moderation
>is an option.
One has to consider the additional effort that it requires to post the
group, to avoid wording something in a manner that is considered
incivil; especially in cases where a previous post was let through.
One also needs to consider the harm caused by having
news.groups.proposals available for enforced civility and having
news.groups implicitly available for incivil discussion.
> and I think it is time to
>> explore other methods of moderation.
>
>In that exploration, we need to think about how such robo-moderation
>would be implemented, who would implement the programming, and who would
>host the server. I believe that some of the suggestions below are
>beyond the capability of current off-the-shelf moderation software.
>
>> I propose that the following form of robo-moderation be used:
>>
>> 1. Subject tags to keep threads based on active proposals.
>>
>> This would keep out random spam, articles about "the news".
>
>I suppose that if the initial article on a given topic had the subject
>tag, and the moderation software was smart enough to find it in replies,
It shouldn't be that difficult to find the the tag in the subject
header.
>that this might work reasonably well for discussion that begins with an
>RFD. The original purpose of the newsgroup was to give proponents a
>place to propose newsgroups, but since we've had precious few proponents
>lately, I can't really object on the basis of newbies getting their
>posts returned because they don't understand the rules.
There could be human moderators who check up on the rejects. You will
also have the References header as a cross-check.
>> 2. Strict limits on cross-posting, limited to exactly one other
>> affected group.
>
>Define "affected group" in a way that could be implemented in a
>programmed solution. The only way I could see of doing this is to have
>a table of "affected groups" with an entry for each thread and a list of
>permissible groups for that thread.
Option 1, There would be at most one affected group per proposal. Or
it might be the primary affected group, or the affected group
designated for discussion.
For example, if there were a proposals for re-organization of the
comp.os.ms-windows.* hierarchy, comp.os.ms-windows.misc might be the
designated as the affected group designated for discussion, even
though the proposal might modify 10's of groups.
Option 2, There could be more than one affected group per proposal,
but cross-posting could be limited to one at a time. For example in
the case of a proposed re-organization of the comp.os.ms-windows.*
hierarchy, discussion about changes to the comp.os.ms-windows.nt.*
sub-hierarchy might be cross-posted to comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,
instead.
Option 3, There could be more than one affected group per proposal,
and multiple groups could be cross-posted to, up to some small limit.
I think that for most proposals, the number of affected groups would
be one, so that Options 2 and 3 could be reworded into terms of a
subset of the affected group(s).
The affected group would have to correspond to the tag.
Rejected articles could be reviewed by human moderators for
consideration of adding additional affected groups.
>If robo-modertion is used, the only realistic solution would be to
>implement a rule of no crossposting. If you allow one arbitrary group,
>it opens the door to abuse. I don't think that prohibiting crossposting
>would have a significant affect on the discussion.
I wouldn't allow one arbitrary group. I would allow only affected
groups. Affected groups have a clearly understood meaning.
>> This would keep out other random threads, attempts to cross-post to
>> auk, alt.config, etc.
>
>But it wouldn't address the issue of adding crossposts over the
>objection of the author of the material.
This should not be an issue. If someone makes a post to Usenet about
a current proposal, it is clearly fair use to quote that material in a
response posted to news.groups.proposals. AFAIK, there has never been
a problem with any affected group other than news.groups; and
news.groups is not an affected group for most proposals.
>> 3. Volume controls:
>>
>> For example, a poster might be limited to 25,000 bytes in a 24-hour
>> period (including headers, etc.). This in itself would encourage
>> trimming of quoted material, discourage long-sigs, etc.
>>
>> Once the volume threshold was reached, then the poster would be
>> limited to some percentage of total volume, say 20%.
>
>I certainly support this idea, although again someone is going to have
>to "teach" a robo-moderation program to enforce it (unless this
>functionality already exists in a system that I've not seen). I would
>rather see the limit based both on number of articles submitted and
>size; if it was based on size then someone could flood the newsgroup
>with large numbers of tiny articles.
The size limit includes headers. It would also be also to include a
presumed minimum size (say 2000 bytes).
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
>On 2007-11-02, in news.groups.proposals, Jim Riley wrote:
>> The moderators supposed function is to keep the discussion focused, by
>> enforcing civility. This is not working, and I think it is time to
>> explore other methods of moderation.
>
>What is it exactly you find not working? Keeping the discussion focused?
>Keeping it focused by enforcing civility? Enforcing civility?
Enabling discussion of proposals. The enforcement of civility creates
an artificial civility, and discourages participation.
--
Jim Riley
Raving
behind their ability to do as they please. I shall publish further
comments elsewhere.
Marcel Beaudoin
news:13io88f...@corp.supernews.com in news.groups.proposals:
You could always hold parallel discussions. One here, and one in
news.groups.
That being said, why do I get the feeling that this is simply another tack
to get the B8MB to vote for the creation of ng.policy??
--
Marcel
Marcel Beaudoin
@corp.supernews.com in news.groups.proposals:
> I am not arguing whether they are doing a good job or not of enforcing
> civility, but rather whether that the enforcement of civility is
> actually contributing to the actual discussion and debate of
> proposals.
What made you change your mind?? A couple of weeks ago, you seemed to have
no problem discussing RFDs in ngp, or at least it seemed that way with your
posts stating (paraphrased):"If you want to discuss the proposal, do it in
ngp"
--
Marcel
jayne.ku...@gmail.com
> The moderators supposed function is to keep the discussion focused, by
> enforcing civility. This is not working, and I think it is time to
> explore other methods of moderation.
>
> I propose that the following form of robo-moderation be used:
While I have seen some moderation decisions that differ from what my
own choices would have been, overall I think the moderators are doing
an excellent job. I have found the more focussed style of discussions
and basic level of civility very helpful and pleasant, both from the
perspective of a mentor and of a proponent. I cannot imagine robo-
moderation producing anything nearly as good. I would not want to see
this changed.
Jayne
Doug Freyburger
>
> The moderators supposed function is to keep the discussion focused, by
> enforcing civility. This is not working, and I think it is time to
> explore other methods of moderation.
For newsgroup proposals it has worked just fine IMO.
I think the problem is discussion of policy needs to include
news.groups because it is the existing place for policy
discussion. Since it's flooded with incivility, and has been
since long before NGP or the B8BM existed, there isn't any
way out of policy discussions experiencing incivility. Note
that the discussion that lead to the creation of NGP took
place in NGP and that discussion got plenty of incivil posts.
So it's the price of trying to discuss policy as it stands at
the moment. Either you pay the price, decline to discuss
policy, or propose a reorg that includes a moderated group
for policy discussion so civility can be maintained during
policy discssions.
Jim Riley
news.groups.proposals is the place to discuss proposals. Such
discussion may be cross-posted to affected groups. That does not mean
that the discussion should be split between news.groups.proposals and
another group such as news.groups.
I am not able to cross-post discussion be news.groups.proposals and
news.groups; I am not able to respond in news.groups.proposals quoting
an article that appeared in news.groups; I am not able to respond in
news.groups.proposals, citing a message ID of an article in
news.groups and a paraphrase of its contents. I can post a 2nd RFD
that responds to discussion in news.groups.
Therefore under the current moderation regime in place, it is
impossible for me to respond to comments made in news.groups. And it
is precisely the enforced civility that makes it impossible.
In other cases, I have had to change a submission 3 or 4 times in
order to get it accepted by the moderators.
And remember that the proposal that you are referring to was an
attempt to move certain discussion out from the moderation of
news.groups.proposals.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
<marcel....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote
>news:13io88f...@corp.supernews.com in news.groups.proposals:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 14:19:01 CST, Aatu Koskensilta
>> <aatu.kos...@xortec.fi> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2007-11-02, in news.groups.proposals, Jim Riley wrote:
>>>> The moderators supposed function is to keep the discussion focused, by
>>>> enforcing civility. This is not working, and I think it is time to
>>>> explore other methods of moderation.
>>>
>>>What is it exactly you find not working? Keeping the discussion focused?
>>>Keeping it focused by enforcing civility? Enforcing civility?
>>
>> Enabling discussion of proposals. The enforcement of civility creates
>> an artificial civility, and discourages participation.
>
>You could always hold parallel discussions. One here, and one in
>news.groups.
One without civility and one with the pretense of civility?
I could, but why would a sane person do so?
>That being said, why do I get the feeling that this is simply another tack
>to get the B8MB to vote for the creation of ng.policy??
It would be speculative on my part as to to your motivation or thought
processes. Why do you get the feeling that this is simply another
tack to get the B8MB to vote for the creation of news.groups.policy?
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
wrote:
>Jim Riley <jimr...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> The moderators supposed function is to keep the discussion focused, by
>> enforcing civility. This is not working, and I think it is time to
>> explore other methods of moderation.
>So it's the price of trying to discuss policy as it stands at
>the moment. Either you pay the price, decline to discuss
>policy, or propose a reorg that includes a moderated group
>for policy discussion so civility can be maintained during
>policy discssions.
How about two moderated news.groups.proposals.* one hand moderated and
one robo-moderated, a news.groups.policy (unmoderated), a
news.groups.policy.moderated and a rename of news.groups to
news.groups.classic?
--
Jim Riley
Aatu Koskensilta
> How about two moderated news.groups.proposals.* one hand moderated and
> one robo-moderated, a news.groups.policy (unmoderated), a
> news.groups.policy.moderated and a rename of news.groups to
> news.groups.classic?
How about not? On the off chance that this was a serious suggestion, let's
offer some more or less constructive criticism.
First, there is no need for all this complexity -- the structure exists for
management of the Big-8 (and news.groups de facto for general chatter about
Big-8), that is, primarily for proponents, their proposals and those willing
to discuss the merits of these proposals, most importantly the board
members. It seems the current solution is problematic mainly for proposals
concerning the structure itself. Fiddling with the details just to make that
kind of discussion marginally more agreeable to a relatively small number of
people is pointless busywork.
Second, there is no chance of such restructuring being successful given the
current problems with propagation and related technical issues.
That said, I do have some sympathy for your concerns about "pretend
civility" being unconducive to focused discussion. If enough people feel
this is a real problem, the obvious solution would be to abandon
news.groups.proposals altogether and go back to discussing proposals in
news.groups. After all, as said, the problems with news.groups have little
to do with cross-posting or some single individual posting volumes of stuff.
It is possible of course that I'm mistaken and the individuals perceived to
be responsible for the presumably toxic atmosphere in news.groups would not
wish to participate and contribute vitriol in a new group, even if it was
just lightly robo-moderated, perhaps because they couldn't cross-post their
witticisms for all to see. I don't think it's worth carrying out a
potentially hazardous experiment just to find out.
Steve Bonine
> news.groups.proposals is the place to discuss proposals. Such
> discussion may be cross-posted to affected groups. That does not mean
> that the discussion should be split between news.groups.proposals and
> another group such as news.groups.
I disagree. If someone wants to discuss a proposal in an unmoderated
newsgroup, they should have the freedom to do so.
> I am not able to cross-post discussion be news.groups.proposals and
> news.groups;
Yes, you are, and have done so.
> I am not able to respond in news.groups.proposals quoting
> an article that appeared in news.groups;
Given our basic disagreement about the problem with parallel discussions
in news.groups and news.groups.proposals, it follows that we have a
disagreement on this aspect also. No, you cannot respond in n.g.p and
quote something that appeared in n.g over the objections of the person
who wrote the article in news.groups. In the best of all worlds, I see
the advantage of doing that, but this is far from the best of all
worlds. The advantage of adding a crosspost in this case is tiny and
the disadvantage is huge, so why do it?
> I am not able to respond in
> news.groups.proposals, citing a message ID of an article in
> news.groups and a paraphrase of its contents.
You have been encouraged to paraphrase the contents of material in other
newsgroups into news.groups.proposals, but are unwilling to do so. But
again, what's the big deal? It's simply not necessary to respond to
*each comment* of *each individual*. The points discussed in
news.groups are invariably discussed in news.groups.proposals. In the
rare case (and I have yet to actually observe it) where something is
discussed only in news.groups, you can bring up that issue in
news.groups.proposals.
> I can post a 2nd RFD
> that responds to discussion in news.groups.
Which is equivalent to paraphrasing the contents of material in other
newsgroups.
> Therefore under the current moderation regime in place, it is
> impossible for me to respond to comments made in news.groups. And it
> is precisely the enforced civility that makes it impossible.
What's wrong with responding to comments in news.groups, in news.groups?
If someone makes a comment in a given newsgroup, it seems appropriate
to respond to that comment in the newsgroup in which it was made. I
just don't understand why you feel that each and every comment that each
and every individual makes deserves a response *in news.groups.proposals*.
> In other cases, I have had to change a submission 3 or 4 times in
> order to get it accepted by the moderators.
It is perhaps inappropriate of me to share this information, but I'm
going to do so anyway. Jim, you are the only person who has had this
problem. A very few people have been asked to resubmit their article
with less quoting or with more civility, but you are the only person who
has ever resubmitted an article three or four times.
I understand your comment about "enforced civility". It's another way
of saying that moderated newsgroups have both advantages and
disadvantages. You cannot say anything you want here, and that's both
an advantage and a disadvantage. The newsgroup was created to provide a
"more congenial" atmosphere, but it's simply not possible to have a
"more gonenial" atmosphere without enforcing some rules. It's a
tradeoff. In short, you can have either news.groups or
news.groups.proposals. But the good news is that you can have either,
or both.
If you're hung up on the fact that "official discussion" of proposals
takes place in news.groups.proposals, show me one case where someone
brought up a significant issue in news.groups which was not also
discussed in news.groups.proposals. Then there's the little fact that
several of the Board members read news.groups anyway, and will see the
discussion there.
> And remember that the proposal that you are referring to was an
> attempt to move certain discussion out from the moderation of
> news.groups.proposals.
I've seen vanishingly little support for your suggestion of
robo-moderation of news.groups.proposals. I think that folks realize
that such a move would create a clone of news.groups, and we've already
got news.groups. This is not a disparaging comment on news.groups; I
see it as an alternative for people who prefer an unmoderated
discussion, not mutually exclusive with news.groups.proposals.
Marcel Beaudoin
news:13iqo46...@corp.supernews.com in news.groups.proposals:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 13:29:10 CST, Marcel Beaudoin
> <marcel....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote news:13io80s688t5285
>>@corp.supernews.com in news.groups.proposals:
>>
>>> I am not arguing whether they are doing a good job or not of
>>> enforcing civility, but rather whether that the enforcement of
>>> civility is actually contributing to the actual discussion and
>>> debate of proposals.
>>
>>What made you change your mind?? A couple of weeks ago, you seemed to
>>have no problem discussing RFDs in ngp, or at least it seemed that way
>>with your posts stating (paraphrased):"If you want to discuss the
>>proposal, do it in ngp"
>
> news.groups.proposals is the place to discuss proposals. Such
> discussion may be cross-posted to affected groups. That does not mean
> that the discussion should be split between news.groups.proposals and
> another group such as news.groups.
>
> I am not able to cross-post discussion be news.groups.proposals and
> news.groups; I am not able to respond in news.groups.proposals quoting
> an article that appeared in news.groups; I am not able to respond in
> news.groups.proposals, citing a message ID of an article in
> news.groups and a paraphrase of its contents.
Yes you can. Paraphrase the post(s) to which you are replying if you feel
the absolute need to reply to a post from news.groups in
news.groups.proposals.
> I can post a 2nd RFD
> that responds to discussion in news.groups.
Or just reply to posts in news.groups in news.groups, to posts in
news.groups.proposals in news.groups.proposals.
> Therefore under the current moderation regime in place, it is
> impossible for me to respond to comments made in news.groups. And it
> is precisely the enforced civility that makes it impossible.
If it is the enforced civility that makes it impossible, you could
always, I don't know, reply in news.groups to posts made in news.groups.
No moderators there with which to enforce civility.
> In other cases, I have had to change a submission 3 or 4 times in
> order to get it accepted by the moderators.
So?? I have had posts rejected by the moderators.
> And remember that the proposal that you are referring to was an
> attempt to move certain discussion out from the moderation of
> news.groups.proposals.
That makes no difference in the discussion we are having here. Your
complaint about enforced civility restricting discussion is a red
herring. If you don't want enfirced civility, post in news.groups. There
are board members that read and post in news.groups, so anything you post
there will be seen by the board. You could also, in a post to ngp,
include pointers to posts you have made in news.groups with a short, 1
or 2 line summary of the post.
--
Marcel
Jim Riley
>Jim Riley wrote:
>
>> news.groups.proposals is the place to discuss proposals. Such
>> discussion may be cross-posted to affected groups. That does not mean
>> that the discussion should be split between news.groups.proposals and
>> another group such as news.groups.
>
>I disagree. If someone wants to discuss a proposal in an unmoderated
>newsgroup, they should have the freedom to do so.
The charter that you as moderators are attempting to enforce says:
Proponents with active RFD's must conduct their discussions in
news.groups.proposals.
If I'm the proponent, I don't have the option to participate in two
disjoint discussions. So cross-posting is the way to bring the
discussion together.
So while other people may post articles related to proposal in an
unmoderated newsgroup, the only way I can respond as part of a
discussion is by cross-posting.
>> I am not able to cross-post discussion be news.groups.proposals and
>> news.groups;
>
>Yes, you are, and have done so.
When was the last time that I was permitted to cross-post? Just
before you decided to start rejecting cross-posted articles?
>> I am not able to respond in news.groups.proposals quoting
>> an article that appeared in news.groups;
>
>Given our basic disagreement about the problem with parallel discussions
>in news.groups and news.groups.proposals, it follows that we have a
>disagreement on this aspect also. No, you cannot respond in n.g.p and
>quote something that appeared in n.g over the objections of the person
>who wrote the article in news.groups.
If someone is apparently responding to a proposal that I have made,
and remembering that the RFD included an explicit request to discuss
the proposal in news.groups.proposals, why should I or the moderators
presume that the person would object to my response appearing in
news.groups.proposals?
Should I assume that they would object because they used some naughty
words or uncivil language? Should I check for an X-Ignore-This
header? If the moderators were to maintain a registry of persons who
object to participating in news.groups.proposals, I would know who to
ignore. There should be no problem with me cross-posting a response
to unregistered individuals, should there?
> In the best of all worlds, I see
>the advantage of doing that, but this is far from the best of all
>worlds. The advantage of adding a crosspost in this case is tiny and
>the disadvantage is huge, so why do it?
>
>> I am not able to respond in
>> news.groups.proposals, citing a message ID of an article in
>> news.groups and a paraphrase of its contents.
>
>You have been encouraged to paraphrase the contents of material in other
>newsgroups into news.groups.proposals, but are unwilling to do so.
My understanding is that (1) I may not cross-post a response to
news.groups.proposals; (2) I may not quote an article that appeared in
news.groups with a response in news.groups proposals; (3) I may not
followup up to an article that appeared in news.groups.proposals, with
a paraphrase of its content, and my response; (4) I may not post an
article in news.groups.proposals that includes the Message-ID of an
article in news.groups, and a paraphrase of that content.
I may mention posts in news.groups if I post a new RFD. This would
either cause me to post additional RFD's simply to be able to respond
in a timely fashion; to respond a couple of weeks later; or to ignore
the post.
> But
>again, what's the big deal? It's simply not necessary to respond to
>*each comment* of *each individual*.
Which posts I respond to should be my decision, even if I *were* to
respond to each comment of each individual.
> The points discussed in
>news.groups are invariably discussed in news.groups.proposals.
That may or may not be true. You do not let me use my discretion as
to whether or not the point was discussed in news.groups.proposals or
not.
> In the
>rare case (and I have yet to actually observe it) where something is
>discussed only in news.groups, you can bring up that issue in
>news.groups.proposals.
Let's say that this is true. Then why should anyone bother with
news.groups? In case there are board members who can't or don't read
news.groups.proposals? I should probably wait a couple of weeks
before reading news.groups, and then if there is anything of interest,
wait a couple of more weeks just to make sure whether it comes up in
news.groups.proposals.
>> I can post a 2nd RFD
>> that responds to discussion in news.groups.
>
>Which is equivalent to paraphrasing the contents of material in other
>newsgroups.
Perhaps it would be better that the proponent not respond in
news.groups.proposals either, but simply post new RFD's from time to
time?
>> Therefore under the current moderation regime in place, it is
>> impossible for me to respond to comments made in news.groups. And it
>> is precisely the enforced civility that makes it impossible.
>
>What's wrong with responding to comments in news.groups, in news.groups?
The charter that you as moderators are attempting to enforce says:
Proponents with active RFD's must conduct their discussions in
news.groups.proposals.
And again, why should I conduct one discussion with the denizens of
news.groups; and another with the habituates of news.groups.proposals?
> If someone makes a comment in a given newsgroup, it seems appropriate
>to respond to that comment in the newsgroup in which it was made. I
>just don't understand why you feel that each and every comment that each
>and every individual makes deserves a response *in news.groups.proposals*.
I don't understand why you as moderator believe that I have attempted
to respond to each and every comment that each and every individual
makes. That is simply another reason to eliminate hand moderation of
news.groups.proposals. The moderators may be moderating based on what
they see as the motivation of the participants of a discussion.
>> In other cases, I have had to change a submission 3 or 4 times in
>> order to get it accepted by the moderators.
>
>It is perhaps inappropriate of me to share this information, but I'm
>going to do so anyway. Jim, you are the only person who has had this
>problem. A very few people have been asked to resubmit their article
>with less quoting or with more civility, but you are the only person who
>has ever resubmitted an article three or four times.
I recall only one article of mine which was rejected because of
excessive quoting, rather than quoting too many words which a
moderator perceived as being uncivil.
That was when I attempted to post a quasi-RFD for a
non-content-robomoderated news.groups.policy. It was ridiculous for
that article to be rejected simply because it contained most of the
boilerplate of the original RFD.
I have never (re)submitted the same article three or four times. I
have submitted an edited version, in hopes of making it acceptable to
the moderators.
How about if the moderators were to propose language that the
submitter might use, and the submitter could decide whether or not the
new text adequately conveyed their ideas?
>I understand your comment about "enforced civility". It's another way
>of saying that moderated newsgroups have both advantages and
>disadvantages. You cannot say anything you want here, and that's both
>an advantage and a disadvantage. The newsgroup was created to provide a
> "more congenial" atmosphere, but it's simply not possible to have a
>"more gonenial" atmosphere without enforcing some rules.
I don't think that it is producing a more congenial atmosphere, that's
long gone.
> It's a
>tradeoff. In short, you can have either news.groups or
>news.groups.proposals. But the good news is that you can have either,
>or both.
In news.groups.proposals were robo-moderated this would continue to be
true.
>If you're hung up on the fact that "official discussion" of proposals
>takes place in news.groups.proposals, show me one case where someone
>brought up a significant issue in news.groups which was not also
>discussed in news.groups.proposals.
Now the proponent is expected to determine whether something posted to
news.groups is signficant or not?
> Then there's the little fact that
>several of the Board members read news.groups anyway, and will see the
>discussion there.
If the same points are invariably repeated, why would they bother?
>> And remember that the proposal that you are referring to was an
>> attempt to move certain discussion out from the moderation of
>> news.groups.proposals.
>
>I've seen vanishingly little support for your suggestion of
>robo-moderation of news.groups.proposals.
This is non-responsive to what I wrote. Marcel Beaudoin's question
was why I wanting to change news.groups.proposals when just a couple
of weeks ago I was directing discussion to news.groups.proposals. The
fact is, that was during a discussion that would change
news.groups.proposals.
> I think that folks realize
>that such a move would create a clone of news.groups, and we've already
>got news.groups. This is not a disparaging comment on news.groups; I
>see it as an alternative for people who prefer an unmoderated
>discussion, not mutually exclusive with news.groups.proposals.
The method by which news.groups.proposals is moderated creates an
impression that news.groups and its participants are held in contempt.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
<marcel....@gmail.com> wrote:
You seem not able to recognize the difference between the content of
an article and where it is posted. The articles are about a formal
proposal for which there is a specified place for discussing. They
were not merely "news.groups-type" posts that are presumptively
unworthy for discussion in news.groups.proposals.
There should be no reason to jump through hoops.
Besides if you feel it is uncivil to cross-post, and uncivil to post a
reply in news.groups.proposals, why do you feel it is proper to
paraphrase or even refer to an article in news.groups in
news.groups.proposals?
How about if the B8MB were to appoint an official paraphraser who
could hunt down relevant posts in news.groups, and if they ever saw
anything of interest to news.groups.proposals, the paraphraser could
post a paraphrase to news.groups? If anyone wished to take part in
the social aspects of news.groups, they could of course.
>> I can post a 2nd RFD
>> that responds to discussion in news.groups.
>
>Or just reply to posts in news.groups in news.groups, to posts in
>news.groups.proposals in news.groups.proposals.
Why not post articles that are on topic for news.groups.proposals in
news.groups.proposals?
>> Therefore under the current moderation regime in place, it is
>> impossible for me to respond to comments made in news.groups. And it
>> is precisely the enforced civility that makes it impossible.
>
>If it is the enforced civility that makes it impossible, you could
>always, I don't know, reply in news.groups to posts made in news.groups.
>No moderators there with which to enforce civility.
news.groups.proposals was created as _the_ place to discuss formal
proposals. The enforced civility makes it impossible to use
news.groups.proposals for the purpose it was created.
>> In other cases, I have had to change a submission 3 or 4 times in
>> order to get it accepted by the moderators.
>
>So?? I have had posts rejected by the moderators.
And this helped the discussion that you were attempting to participate
in?
>> And remember that the proposal that you are referring to was an
>> attempt to move certain discussion out from the moderation of
>> news.groups.proposals.
>
>That makes no difference in the discussion we are having here.
It is entirely relevant to the question that you asked:
What made you change your mind??
> Your
>complaint about enforced civility restricting discussion is a red
>herring. If you don't want enfirced civility, post in news.groups.
I want to discuss a proposal which I am the proponent of. The current
moderation scheme is not facilitating that discussion, but rather
inhibititing it.
> There
>are board members that read and post in news.groups, so anything you post
>there will be seen by the board.
So if they see something in news.groups, and I don't respond they
might vote down my proposal?
If those persons are reading posts in their capacity of board members,
shouldn't they either direct the posters to news.groups.proposals, or
post a paraphrase to news.groups.proposals?
> You could also, in a post to ngp,
>include pointers to posts you have made in news.groups with a short, 1
>or 2 line summary of the post.
Or if there were robo-moderation, I could simply cross-post my
response to news.groups.proposals.
--
Jim Riley
Raving
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 13:28:37 CST, Marcel Beaudoin
>
>
>
>
> >> On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 14:19:01 CST, Aatu Koskensilta
> >> <aatu.koskensi...@xortec.fi> wrote:
>
> >>>On 2007-11-02, in news.groups.proposals, Jim Riley wrote:
> >>>> The moderators supposed function is to keep the discussion focused, by
> >>>> enforcing civility. This is not working, and I think it is time to
> >>>> explore other methods of moderation.
>
> >>>What is it exactly you find not working? Keeping the discussion focused?
> >>>Keeping it focused by enforcing civility? Enforcing civility?
>
> >> Enabling discussion of proposals. The enforcement of civility creates
> >> an artificial civility, and discourages participation.
imposed in the context of ad hominem dismissal. That is a very nasty
way of being uncivil whilst insisting upon the pretense of maintaining
civility.
>
> >You could always hold parallel discussions. One here, and one in
> >news.groups.
This is an example of 'ad hominem' dismissal. It amounts to saying
'why don't you go fly a kite' and if you don't like being told to go
fly a kite we will claim that you lack civility and censure you by
that route.
>
> One without civility and one with the pretense of civility?
>
> I could, but why would a sane person do so?
By posting in news.groups you might be read but you might also be
ignored. The insistence that the opinion is published there because
it will not be admitted here, provides the very strong expectation
that comments posted to news.groups are to be placed there explicitly
so that they might be ignored here.
Kjetil Torgrim Homme
>
> When was the last time that I was permitted to cross-post? Just
> before you decided to start rejecting cross-posted articles?
if this is a blanket ban on cross-posts, the moderator policy should
be changed. I suspect it only applies to *adding* a cross-post to an
existing thread running outside n.g.p., though.
> If someone is apparently responding to a proposal that I have
> made, and remembering that the RFD included an explicit request to
> discuss the proposal in news.groups.proposals, why should I or the
> moderators presume that the person would object to my response
> appearing in news.groups.proposals?
IMHO, you shouldn't. the default for messages on Usenet is to allow
your message to be quoted and discussed. any deviance from this must
be indicated explicitly, e.g., by a notice in the signature or a
header we can agree on. (X-No-Archive is the closest thing we have
today, AFAIK.)
> My understanding is that (1) I may not cross-post a response to
> news.groups.proposals; (2) I may not quote an article that
> appeared in news.groups with a response in news.groups proposals;
> (3) I may not followup up to an article that appeared in
> news.groups.proposals, with a paraphrase of its content, and my
> response; (4) I may not post an article in news.groups.proposals
> that includes the Message-ID of an article in news.groups, and a
> paraphrase of that content.
if this is true, the moderator's interpretation of the policy must
change.
--
Kjetil T.
Jim Riley
<kjet...@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>[Jim Riley]:
>>
>> When was the last time that I was permitted to cross-post? Just
>> before you decided to start rejecting cross-posted articles?
>
>if this is a blanket ban on cross-posts, the moderator policy should
>be changed. I suspect it only applies to *adding* a cross-post to an
>existing thread running outside n.g.p., though.
AFAIK, this only applies to cross-posts between news.groups.proposals
and news.groups.
When I posted my RFD for news.groups.policy, Dave Balderstone
cross-posted his response to news.groups. I honored his cross-post
because news.group could be considered an affected group. So there
had been a running thread cross-posted between the two groups.
Adam Kerman wrote a reply in which he also complained about the
cross-posting. My cross-posted response was rejected, even though
every other article in that subthread had been cross-posted, and
Kerman quoted extensively from posts that had been made to
news.groups.proposals.
>> If someone is apparently responding to a proposal that I have
>> made, and remembering that the RFD included an explicit request to
>> discuss the proposal in news.groups.proposals, why should I or the
>> moderators presume that the person would object to my response
>> appearing in news.groups.proposals?
>IMHO, you shouldn't. the default for messages on Usenet is to allow
>your message to be quoted and discussed. any deviance from this must
>be indicated explicitly, e.g., by a notice in the signature or a
>header we can agree on. (X-No-Archive is the closest thing we have
>today, AFAIK.)
>> My understanding is that (1) I may not cross-post a response to
>> news.groups.proposals; (2) I may not quote an article that
>> appeared in news.groups with a response in news.groups proposals;
>> (3) I may not followup up to an article that appeared in
>> news.groups.proposals, with a paraphrase of its content, and my
>> response; (4) I may not post an article in news.groups.proposals
>> that includes the Message-ID of an article in news.groups, and a
>> paraphrase of that content.
>if this is true, the moderator's interpretation of the policy must
>change.
But why is there a need for a moderator's interpretation at all? There
is no indication that the denizens of news.groups objected to
discussion of the RFD for news.groups.policy.
At one time, discussion of group proposals outside news.groups was
considered to be improper (discussion in rec.widgets was supposed to
be about widgets, and not about a possible group for blue widgets or
gadgets).
Later, participants in some topical groups complained about this
policy, because they thought it lead to stealth re-organizations
(creating a blue widget group behind the backs of those who knew
widgetry best and its discussion on Usenet).
So the policy was relaxed, and it was considered OK to cross-post a
discussion about creation of a blue widgets group betweem rec.widgets
and news.groups, so long as the regular participants in rec.widgets
did not object to the discussion.
Now, news.groups.proposals has supplanted news.groups as the place for
discussing group proposals.
So if news.groups.proposals were primarily robo-moderated, the
moderators would simply have to decide whether a group was affected by
a proposal or not, and enable cross-posting between
news.groups.proposals and the affected group for articles that were
properly tagged for that proposal (eg articles could be cross-posted
between news.groups.proposals and rec.widgets, so long as they
contained the the "[blue-widget]" tag.
--
Jim Riley
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... So the policy was relaxed, and it was considered OK to cross-post a
>discussion about creation of a blue widgets group betweem rec.widgets
>and news.groups, so long as the regular participants in rec.widgets
>did not object to the discussion.
We kept as much of the preceding language about how to cross-post
responsibly during discussion of an RFD in the new FAQ.
>Now, news.groups.proposals has supplanted news.groups as the place for
>discussing group proposals. ...
We are not trying to prohibit or control discussion elsewhere.
It is up to proponents to decide how they will bring material
from discussions elsewhere into the RFD thread in n.g.p.
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:creation
Do I have to discuss my RFD in news.groups.proposals?
* Yes. Proponents must follow the discussion in n.g.p and make a
reasonable case for their RFD.
* Proponents may, at their discretion, discuss the proposal in other
newsgroups.
* When discussing the RFD in other groups, proponents should take care
to see that their remarks and answers to significant questions appear
in n.g.p as well. The definitive discussion of the proposal takes
place in news.groups.proposals. Neither the board nor other interested
parties should be expected to trawl Usenet looking for fragments of
the discussion.
Who decides what is a "significant question"?
* The proponent has the obligation to sift through input from
respondents and decide what questions need to be answered in the
central thread(s) about the proposal.
* The proponent has the right to remain silent if the question has
already been asked and answered, if it seems off-topic, or if it seems
otherwise irrelevant to the RFD.
* The quality of a proponent’s character is under implicit review by
the Board and by participants in the RFD thread(s), especially if the
RFD is for a moderated group. Proponents must use their own discretion
in deciding how to respond to questions raised about their proposal;
how well they make those choices can have a major impact on the
resolution of the RFD.
Kjetil Torgrim Homme
>
> When I posted my RFD for news.groups.policy, Dave Balderstone
> cross-posted his response to news.groups. I honored his
> cross-post because news.group could be considered an affected
> group. So there had been a running thread cross-posted between
> the two groups.
>
> Adam Kerman wrote a reply in which he also complained about the
> cross-posting.
was his response cross-posted? I assume no.
> My cross-posted response was rejected, even though every other
> article in that subthread had been cross-posted, and Kerman quoted
> extensively from posts that had been made to
> news.groups.proposals.
adding back the cross-post when Kerman explicitly complained about it
seems a bit ... tactless. if you wanted to respond, it should be in
news.groups only, but the restriction should apply to that sub-thread
only. you and Balderstone could continue your cross-posted exchange
without Kerman's participation.
> So the policy was relaxed, and it was considered OK to cross-post
> a discussion about creation of a blue widgets group betweem
> rec.widgets and news.groups, so long as the regular participants
> in rec.widgets did not object to the discussion.
>
> Now, news.groups.proposals has supplanted news.groups as the place
> for discussing group proposals.
this is a reasonable policy which can be (and is) extended to n.g.p.
> So if news.groups.proposals were primarily robo-moderated, the
> moderators would simply have to decide whether a group was
> affected by a proposal or not, and enable cross-posting between
> news.groups.proposals and the affected group for articles that
> were properly tagged for that proposal (eg articles could be
> cross-posted between news.groups.proposals and rec.widgets, so
> long as they contained the the "[blue-widget]" tag.
this sounds like quite a bit of work on both the part of the
moderators and the participants of the discussion. I don't think the
benefit (chiefly faster turn-around of exchanges) outweighs the
disadvantages.
I trust the moderators can gauge the resistance against cross-posts to
the widget group among its regulars and establish if there's a rough
concensus. a single voice of discontent (e.g., Adam Kerman's) should
not be sufficient.
--
Kjetil T.
Jim Riley
<kjet...@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>[Jim Riley]:
>>
>> When I posted my RFD for news.groups.policy, Dave Balderstone
>> cross-posted his response to news.groups. I honored his
>> cross-post because news.group could be considered an affected
>> group. So there had been a running thread cross-posted between
>> the two groups.
>>
>> Adam Kerman wrote a reply in which he also complained about the
>> cross-posting.
>
>was his response cross-posted? I assume no.
No.
>> My cross-posted response was rejected, even though every other
>> article in that subthread had been cross-posted, and Kerman quoted
>> extensively from posts that had been made to
>> news.groups.proposals.
>
>adding back the cross-post when Kerman explicitly complained about it
>seems a bit ... tactless. if you wanted to respond, it should be in
>news.groups only, but the restriction should apply to that sub-thread
>only.
The discussion went like this:
Jim: I've got a proposal for a new group (Posted RFD; informed
news.groups as an affected group - not as an alternate location for
discussion of proposals; directed discussion to
news.groups.proposals).
Dave: About your proposal, blah, blah (added news.groups to
cross-post, apparently wanting its denizens to be able to participate,
to read or to post to the discussion).
Jim: About my proposal, yada, yada (continued cross-post initiated by
Dave).
Adam: I'd like to respond to something you and Dave were discussion,
and so on and so forth (dropped cross-post, also complained about
cross-posting).
What Adam wrote was relevant to the discussion. If he had posted to
news.groups.proposals and requested that news.groups be dropped from
the discussion, I would have honored the request. His demand that
news.groups.proposals be excluded from the discussion is non-sensical.
> you and Balderstone could continue your cross-posted exchange
>without Kerman's participation.
If it were a private discussion between Balderstone and myself, we
should use e-mail. It was a public discussion that Adam Kerman joined
into.
>> So the policy was relaxed, and it was considered OK to cross-post
>> a discussion about creation of a blue widgets group betweem
>> rec.widgets and news.groups, so long as the regular participants
>> in rec.widgets did not object to the discussion.
>>
>> Now, news.groups.proposals has supplanted news.groups as the place
>> for discussing group proposals.
>
>this is a reasonable policy which can be (and is) extended to n.g.p.
The policy was to exclude the topical group. If rec.widgets didn't
want to participate in the news.groups discussion, the cross-posting
would be stopped, and the regulars in rec.widgets would be telling
other to stick to widgets.
>> So if news.groups.proposals were primarily robo-moderated, the
>> moderators would simply have to decide whether a group was
>> affected by a proposal or not, and enable cross-posting between
>> news.groups.proposals and the affected group for articles that
>> were properly tagged for that proposal (eg articles could be
>> cross-posted between news.groups.proposals and rec.widgets, so
>> long as they contained the the "[blue-widget]" tag.
>
>this sounds like quite a bit of work on both the part of the
>moderators and the participants of the discussion. I don't think the
>benefit (chiefly faster turn-around of exchanges) outweighs the
>disadvantages.
I don't see tagging as particularly burdensome on participants in the
discussion. The detection of the tags and cross-posted groups can be
automated. The tag would be included in the RFD, and could be
inserted by the moderators in starter articles for informal proposals.
>I trust the moderators can gauge the resistance against cross-posts to
>the widget group among its regulars and establish if there's a rough
>concensus. a single voice of discontent (e.g., Adam Kerman's) should
>not be sufficient.
They could simply drop the offended group. I think the denizens in
news.groups have made it clear that they don't wish to be included in
discussion of formal proposals, so news.groups can be excluded from
the start.
--
Jim Riley
Kjetil Torgrim Homme
>
> What Adam wrote was relevant to the discussion. If he had posted
> to news.groups.proposals and requested that news.groups be dropped
> from the discussion, I would have honored the request. His demand
> that news.groups.proposals be excluded from the discussion is
> non-sensical.
I agree.
> [Kjetil Torgrim Homme]:
> > you and Balderstone could continue your cross-posted exchange
> > without Kerman's participation.
>
> If it were a private discussion between Balderstone and myself, we
> should use e-mail. It was a public discussion that Adam Kerman
> joined into.
he joined into it, but the terms for the discussion were already laid.
he has no right to demand a change for the parts of the discussion
where he isn't participating, i.e., where there is no quoted material
from him.
> The policy was to exclude the topical group. If rec.widgets
> didn't want to participate in the news.groups discussion, the
> cross-posting would be stopped, and the regulars in rec.widgets
> would be telling other to stick to widgets.
right -- isn't this happening in n.g.p. today? the latest example was
the WoW discussion.
> I don't see tagging as particularly burdensome on participants in
> the discussion. The detection of the tags and cross-posted groups
> can be automated. The tag would be included in the RFD, and could
> be inserted by the moderators in starter articles for informal
> proposals.
should new tags be detected automatically, too? remember that the RFD
itself won't be submitted to the ngp-robomoderator, since it already
has been approved by the nan moderator. this means the (human)
moderator has to poll for new articles, whereas today he will be
alerted by a messages in his e-mail. if he doesn't add the new tag in
a timely manner, messages posted in the interim will be rejected. I
fear a lot of technical gotchas in such a scheme. I still don't see
the upside.
> > I trust the moderators can gauge the resistance against
> > cross-posts to the widget group among its regulars and establish
> > if there's a rough concensus. a single voice of discontent
> > (e.g., Adam Kerman's) should not be sufficient.
>
> They could simply drop the offended group. I think the denizens
> in news.groups have made it clear that they don't wish to be
> included in discussion of formal proposals, so news.groups can be
> excluded from the start.
if true, that is sad, and just entrenches the irrelevancy of
news.groups.
--
Kjetil T.
Tim Skirvin
> I propose that the following form of robo-moderation be used:
> 1. Subject tags to keep threads based on active proposals.
> This would keep out random spam, articles about "the news".
This would be fairly difficult to implement, though not
impossible; I wouldn't be excited to try, myself.
> 2. Strict limits on cross-posting, limited to exactly one other
> affected group.
This is fairly easy to implement.
> 3. Volume controls:
> For example, a poster might be limited to 25,000 bytes in a 24-hour
> period (including headers, etc.). This in itself would encourage
> trimming of quoted material, discourage long-sigs, etc.
This would also be fairly difficult to implement, and while I can
see the point, I think that users affected by it would simply morph to get
around the limit.
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Tim Skirvin
> Given the many related proposals from Jim, a different news.groups is
> his obvious goal. While it makes no sense, it's very clear.
I disagree that this "makes no sense".
Without further getting into the discussion of news.groups' value,
I think it's fairly obvious that Jim doesn't see it as working for what he
wants to do, and that news.groups.proposals doesn't suit his needs either.
Myself, I find this distressing; Jim is one of those that is working to
make Usenet better - certainly in his own eyes, but also in my own, even
while we obviously don't agree on everything - and it's bothersome that we
might turn such a person away through politics.
I don't know what the answer is on balance, but I think that we
need at least two things: a place for on-topic and rational discussion
of larger-scale proposals and/or policy discussion without the structure
or restriction of formal proposal discussion, and a way for more people
to contribute constructively to policy discussions. I think that Jim
was trying to solve both of these problems with his news.groups.policy
proposal, and now with this informal proposal, but I wonder if the two
problems really need to be answered separately.
I also wonder if the answers to these questions need to come from
outside the assortment of Usual Suspects.
Jim Riley
<kjet...@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>[Jim Riley]:
>> I don't see tagging as particularly burdensome on participants in
>> the discussion. The detection of the tags and cross-posted groups
>> can be automated. The tag would be included in the RFD, and could
>> be inserted by the moderators in starter articles for informal
>> proposals.
>
>should new tags be detected automatically, too? remember that the RFD
>itself won't be submitted to the ngp-robomoderator, since it already
>has been approved by the nan moderator. this means the (human)
>moderator has to poll for new articles, whereas today he will be
>alerted by a messages in his e-mail. if he doesn't add the new tag in
>a timely manner, messages posted in the interim will be rejected. I
>fear a lot of technical gotchas in such a scheme. I still don't see
>the upside.
RFD's are being signed for both groups (NAN and NGP). I don't know
whether this means that they are actually being passed through both
moderators or not.
In any case, the software could detect for unrecognized tags or
complete absence of tags, so any initial responses to an RFD could be
kicked to the human moderators. Is any google-obfuscation of Subjects
done in a regular fashion, so that the robo-moderator could
automatically detect and correct these?
I wouldn't auto-reject anything that isn't auto-rejected now.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
wrote:
>Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> writes:
>
>> I propose that the following form of robo-moderation be used:
>
>> 1. Subject tags to keep threads based on active proposals.
>> This would keep out random spam, articles about "the news".
>
> This would be fairly difficult to implement, though not
>impossible; I wouldn't be excited to try, myself.
Isn't this just a matter of searching for the Subject header, and
scanning for an accepted tag?
>> 2. Strict limits on cross-posting, limited to exactly one other
>> affected group.
>
> This is fairly easy to implement.
Without item 1, this is impossible to implement. I'm not saying
simply limiting cross-posting to one arbitrary group; but limiting
cross-posting for a particular proposal to at most one of a set of
groups affected by that proposal. Note that the set of groups may
have only one member, and in some cases may be empty.
You have to determine the proposals, before you can check the groups.
>> 3. Volume controls:
>
>> For example, a poster might be limited to 25,000 bytes in a 24-hour
>> period (including headers, etc.). This in itself would encourage
>> trimming of quoted material, discourage long-sigs, etc.
>
> This would also be fairly difficult to implement, and while I can
>see the point, I think that users affected by it would simply morph to get
>around the limit.
Unrecognized identities could be kicked to the human moderators for
review. The idea is not to block absolutely all morphing but to keep
it under control.
It seems like a lot of these things are similar to what Cleanfeed
checks for.
--
Jim Riley
David Saur
>I also wonder if the answers to these questions need to come from
>outside the assortment of Usual Suspects.
Mediation requires that both sides be honest about previous mistakes and
have a genuine desire to work together in the future. Do you really see
evidence that this is the current situation (or could be the situation in
the next 12 months)?
No, I am not volunteering to be on the mediation panel.
Tim Skirvin
>> I don't know what the answer is on balance, but I think that we
>> need at least two things: a place for on-topic and rational discussion
>> of larger-scale proposals and/or policy discussion without the structure
>> or restriction of formal proposal discussion, and a way for more people
>> to contribute constructively to policy discussions.
[...]
>> I also wonder if the answers to these questions need to come from
>> outside the assortment of Usual Suspects.
> What you call the usual suspects are people who care about USENet and
> some of us even run news services.
Well, yes. But I suspect I'm talking about more people than you
are. I'm not just referring to the current news.groups crowd; I'm also
referring to the Board and its allies. Certainly, I'm one of the Usual
Suspects in this context. So are you.
As an example - it makes me sad when I look into news.groups and
see Adam Kerman and Mark Kramer fighting, but there's nothing positive
I can do about it, and probably nothing anybody can do about it except
the two of them. That's how things have gotten across the board - the
best answer to virtually any disagreement is simply to Stay Out Of It.
There's just too much bad blood out there, and everyone involved has drawn
themselves onto one "side" or the other; by intervening, one inherently
escalates.
The whole situation is a bit like pre-WWI Europe. And I worry
that various parties on both sides are trying to escalate things.
But, again, I'm one of the Usual Suspects. I could go on for
pages about how what we *really* need to do is just sit down and talk
about how to improve Usenet, figure out common goals and goalposts, and
the like; but what good would it do? Some people would nod along with
me, and others would assume that I'm just furthering some Machiavellian
scheme; the discussion would descend into flames, and nothing further
would be accomplished. The same thing would happen if you tried it, or
Adam, Jim, Dave... We simply have no credibility with the "other side".
I don't know what the answer is. Ideally, somebody would come
along and "broker a peace"; but it seems unlikely, at best, that such a
thing will happen, especially in the current atmosphere, and I'm not going
to bet on it. My next choice would be to make a place where such a peace
*could* be brokered, where the "sides" would at least be willing to sit
down and talk; but, as previously noted, I don't think that any of us are
the people that could create such a place. (And no, news.groups is not
suitable for this purpose, any more than news.groups.proposals would be;
again, there's simply too much blood). And if that won't work... well, I
guess I don't really know what will.
So - what next? Do we continue to escalate this fight, or do we
try to find someone that can mediate this discussion?
Tim Skirvin
>> So - what next? Do we continue to escalate this fight, or do we
>> try to find someone that can mediate this discussion?
> Why would you consider escalating "this fight"?
I don't want to escalate *any* fight, but in this case it's
apparently the least-energy path - that is, by simply existing, I am
making worse "this fight". (You're right to put it in quotes - I doubt
that I could even adequately define the sides.)
> What discussion, exactly, do you want to mediate?
In large, I want to find a way so that everybody that cares about
Usenet can participate usefully towards improving it, with a minimum of
damage from those that want to hurt it, towards the goal of once again
making Usenet the preeminent discussion forum of the world.
That's a big goal. It's probably not actually possible anymore.
But it's *certainly* not possible when so much effort from those that
would otherwise like to improve things is instead spent on fighting over
management issues that are not resolved, and in fact *can not* be resolved
without massive change. Both "sides" of this fight are guilty of this.
> Personally, I think the current board should accept that their (your)
> experiment has failed, and open an honest discussion in news.groups to
> try to find another way of managing the hierarchy. I think that
> discussion should begin with an admission of failure and a sincere
> request for help designing that new way.
At the same time, I believe that the current "anti-Board" should
accept that their (your) protest has failed, and that the rudiments of
the system are what they are; and that they (you) should open an honest
discussion with the Board in order to find ways to either improve the
system or to reform it. I think that discussion should begin with an
admission that flames, hatred, and incomplete ideas are not an adequate
base for these attempted reforms, and sincerely look to find a way to work
to help Usenet that isn't tearing it down in the mean time.
These views probably aren't compatible. All I really know is that
we don't even have a place to really talk about it, and that we're never
going to work out a resolution without talking.
> But other than that, I really don't think anything will change. As for
> escalation, well, it takes two, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
> Let's see if this makes it through the moderators...
As I think I noted when I first posted in this thread, I agree - I
don't that that news.groups.proposals is really the right place for this
conversation. news.groups is similarly unsuitable. Neutral ground must be
found if we expect a resolution.
My only suggestions are probably not helpful - 'news.groups.policy'
seems like a good name, and the moderation should be very hands-off but
definitely present and handled by a neutral third party. If you have any
suggestions beyond that, please, offer them!
Tim Skirvin
>> I also wonder if the answers to these questions need to come from
>> outside the assortment of Usual Suspects.
> Mediation requires that both sides be honest about previous mistakes and
> have a genuine desire to work together in the future. Do you really see
> evidence that this is the current situation (or could be the situation in
> the next 12 months)?
I do not believe that this is the current situation. I also don't
think that it will be the situation in 12 months; but I think that it
*could* be, if there's a willingness to lay the groundwork for it now.
David Saur
>It's quite clear that there are many people who will not work with the
>board, myself included. In fact, I've been invited by email a couple of
>times to submit RFDs. The first time I declined, the second time I
>simply ignored the message.
Successful mediation requires compromise from everyone. If there is no room
in your Agenda for open discussion on all topics, then even the most
skillful mediator would fail. Do you see members of all sides acknowledging
past mistakes and expressing a desire to work together in the future? I do
not. There is no starting point upon which a mediator could build common
ground for discussion.
Dan Goodman
> It's quite clear that there are many people who will not work with the
> board, myself included. In fact, I've been invited by email a couple
> of times to submit RFDs. The first time I declined, the second time I
> simply ignored the message.
Is there any practical alternative?
--
Dan Goodman
"You, each of you, have some special wild cards. Play with them.
Find out what makes you different and better. Because it is there,
if only you can find it." Vernor Vinge, _Rainbows End_
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://dangoodman.livejournal.com
mirror: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
Tim Skirvin
>> In large, I want to find a way so that everybody that cares about
>> Usenet can participate usefully towards improving it, with a minimum of
>> damage from those that want to hurt it, towards the goal of once again
>> making Usenet the preeminent discussion forum of the world.
> Then disolve the current B8mb and start over.
To what end? It took Russ and Todd a large amount of thought and
effort to figure out a system by which they could hand the system off to
replacements; do you think that the Board should do any less? How would
you suggest making any such hand-off more successful or less acrimonious?
Or would you suggest that we simply delete the PGP key and go
home? No more groups would be created or removed in the Big-8, possibly
ever, certainly not until somebody went through the trouble to create a
new key. Perhaps the checkgroups would be turned off, too. Would this
match your desires?
It is not possible to go back to what once was - on Usenet as well
as in Real Life. The best you can possibly do is to approximate it, and
that takes a lot of work.
>> At the same time, I believe that the current "anti-Board" should
>> accept that their (your) protest has failed,
> Then The Big-8 will never be what it was. Our protest hasn't failed.
[...]
> And why, by the way, do you think it's failed? Just because you
> continue to ignore it? Feh.
What has your protest accomplished to date? What do you expect
that it will accomplish in the next year, or two years, or five? Do you
even know what you want to accomplish after your stated goal of dissolving
the Board has been accomplished?
What do you *want* out of Big-8 management? How are you trying to
get there?
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... My only suggestions are probably not helpful - 'news.groups.policy'
>seems like a good name, and the moderation should be very hands-off but
>definitely present and handled by a neutral third party. ...
I think the n.g.p mods are doing an admirable job.
I doubt that we could find a "neutral third party" who would
have no interest in the issues but would be willing to
act as an unpaid referee.
I don't think we need another moderated forum to help
in decision-making or that the creation of another moderated
forum would resolve the controversies.
In my view, the basic problem comes down to a matter of
perception and I am convinced that no amount of policy
discussion is going to change the fundamental take
(blik, gestalt) that folks have on the situation.
One view is that the board is the legitimate successor
to the troika (Russ, Todd, and Brian). People who
interpret the situation this way may not be wildly
enthusiastic about anyone on the board or about anything
that the board has done, but at a minimum, they are
willing to work within the new system.
The alternative view is that the board is illegitimate,
root, stock, and branch. I see a variety of narratives
about when things went wrong: some stories begin with the
board, some with the troika, some with Allbery, some
with tale, some with spaf and the Great Renaming.
People who interpret the situation this way do not want
to have a long, thoughtful, mediated conversation about
tweaking this or that aspect of the system--rearranging
the deck chairs on the Titanic. The system is sinking
because some culprit (spaf, tale, Russ, skirv) seized
control, sailed stupidly, and is sinking the ship.
>From this point of view, the only remedy is for the
board to repent of its errors, resign, and return
the system to some earlier stage of its development.
Working with the board on any aspect of the system
is, from this standpoint, irrational.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>David Saur <sa...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>>> I also wonder if the answers to these questions need to come from
>>> outside the assortment of Usual Suspects.
>> Mediation requires that both sides be honest about previous mistakes and
>> have a genuine desire to work together in the future. Do you really see
>> evidence that this is the current situation (or could be the situation in
>> the next 12 months)?
> I do not believe that this is the current situation. I also don't
>think that it will be the situation in 12 months; but I think that it
>*could* be, if there's a willingness to lay the groundwork for it now.
"O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us."
The whole problem, as I see it, is that we do not have
a common understanding of what it means to be "honest
about previous mistakes" and what a "genuine desire
to work together in the future" would look like.
I don't think it was a mistake to:
-- create a board to succeed the troika
-- abolish the old polling system
-- change the way things are done
-- ask people to work with the board on
the new system
For others, being "honest about previous mistakes"
means that the board would:
-- confess that it should not exist
-- return to the Golden Age (pick one:
UUCP, Horton, spaf, tale,
Creation Guidelines)
-- abolish all of the changes made since 2005
-- stop asking people to work with the
usurpers and destroyers of the
system
Apologizing and rectifying this or that aspect
of the new system (voting methods, consensus,
this or that FAQ, n.g.p's moderation policy,
creation of the w.o.w group, name of the board,
vocabulary to be used by the board, etc.) simply does
not address the elemental and fundamental
disagreement between the two sides.
The existence and legitimacy of the board is
the fundamental issue. Everything else is
secondary. I don't think that we can "lay
the groundwork" for a resolution of this
disagreement now or twelve months from now.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
Agreed.
There is no point whatsoever in people negotiating
with the board if they think that the existence of
the board is an abomination.
The existence and legitimacy of the board is the
elephant in the living room. Talking about how
to redecorate the room without mentioning the
elephant is ridiculous.
Dr. Brian Leverich
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:01:50 CST, tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote in <tskirvin.20071114051732$58...@cairo.ks.uiuc.edu>:
>
> > ... My only suggestions are probably not helpful - 'news.groups.policy'
> > seems like a good name, and the moderation should be very hands-off but
> > definitely present and handled by a neutral third party. ...
>
> I think the n.g.p mods are doing an admirable job.
YES.
And, speaking more globally, I think the current B8MB shows more
promise than anything I've observed since before tale.
The WHOLE POINT of whoever is providing the control messages is
to get out (slightly) in front of demand and get groups created
(slightly) before they're needed.
Because nobody is perfect, this will result in some stillborn
groups. No big deal. Modern servers and clients can handle
that without difficulty.
Regardless of what management structure is in place, the basic
question is whether or not it can get O(30) new groups created
on a monthly basis. I think the current board could. I'm not
sure any other structure I've seen in the last 15 years has
had even a vague possibility of doing that.
Cheers, B.
--
Dr. Brian Leverich <ne...@linkpendium.com>
News administrator for a very long time
One of the longest-serving moderators
Founder, RootsWeb.com and Linkpendium.com
Chris Barnes
>> I think the n.g.p mods are doing an admirable job.
>
> YES.
>
> And, speaking more globally, I think the current B8MB shows more
> promise than anything I've observed since before tale.
I'll add my voice to this statement. I would dare say this system works
*better* than the days of tale (heresy, I know). I would be ADAMANTLY
opposed to any change which removes the B8MB system now in place.
For that matter, I like the system the way it is now. I don't think it
is broken, and as such, is not in need of fixing. I would say leave it
as it is for at least another year (probably 2).
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
"Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay."
David Saur
>There is no point whatsoever in people negotiating
>with the board if they think that the existence of
>the board is an abomination.
Agreed.
>The existence and legitimacy of the board is the
>elephant in the living room. Talking about how
>to redecorate the room without mentioning the
>elephant is ridiculous.
Do you believe that the overwhelming majority of the board's critics do
not acknowledge the board's legitimacy and that there just aren't enough
critics (for lack of a better descriptor) who want "to redecorate the
room" but keep the elephant (in some form) to make mediation worth the
effort?
I accept that the board was picked by the former crew. My objections
are not to your existence but to specific actions (and attitudes).
In another message you wrote, "The whole problem, as I see it, is that
we do not have a common understanding of what it means to be "honest
about previous mistakes" and what a "genuine desire to work together in
the future" would look like."
I believe the problem is even more basic than that. I don't see either
side willing to entertain the idea that they made a mistake. For the
record, I've made numerous mistakes in my interactions with board
members.
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > Dave Balderstone wrote:
> >
> > > It's quite clear that there are many people who will not work
> > > with the board, myself included. In fact, I've been invited by
> > > email a couple of times to submit RFDs. The first time I
> > > declined, the second time I simply ignored the message.
> >
> > Is there any practical alternative?
>
> To ignore Tim's email messages? Not in my mind. I am not prepared to
> work with the board unless the board is prepared to hold open,
> unmoderated, discussions about totally re-inventing itself.
>
> Once we have that as a starting point, the point where everything is
> open to discussion and change, I will reconsider.
Sorry. I meant "Is there any practical alternative to the current
setup?"
Steve Bonine
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> writes:
> In large, I want to find a way so that everybody that cares about
> Usenet can participate usefully towards improving it, with a minimum of
> damage from those that want to hurt it, towards the goal of once again
> making Usenet the preeminent discussion forum of the world.
As much as it pains me to say this, I don't think your goal of "once
again making Usenet the preeminent discussion forum of the world" is
realistic. There are too many external factors, over which you have no
control, that preclude Usenet ever returning to its golden years. The
one basic requirement for having a discussion is people to discuss the
topic and the world population of those individuals is no longer using
Usenet.
I'm not sure whether to applaud your enthusiasm or condemn your
idealism. It's great to have high expectations unless they are so
unrealistic that they preclude you from accomplishing anything at all.
On the other hand, the alternative to shooting high is to decide to put
Usenet on life support and mitigate the pain as it dies, and I'm not
ready to do that yet either.
> That's a big goal. It's probably not actually possible anymore.
> But it's *certainly* not possible when so much effort from those that
> would otherwise like to improve things is instead spent on fighting over
> management issues that are not resolved, and in fact *can not* be resolved
> without massive change. Both "sides" of this fight are guilty of this.
The current environment is a big disappointment to me. I was away from
Usenet during the transition to the Board, and when I returned I was
shocked at the changes. I was able to reconcile myself to the idea of
the big-8 being managed by a board, but I continue to be appalled by the
level of personal confrontation that this change has brought. The most
painful part is to see people who I know could make a positive
contribution caught up in throwing stones at the board.
>> Personally, I think the current board should accept that their (your)
>> experiment has failed, and open an honest discussion in news.groups to
>> try to find another way of managing the hierarchy. I think that
>> discussion should begin with an admission of failure and a sincere
>> request for help designing that new way.
Dave, I appreciate your sincere suggestion, but I have to admit that I
find it almost humorous. One of the biggest criticisms of the board has
been that they "move the goalposts". (I'm sorry if you, personally,
have never said this; I am not trying to imply a personal statement but
instead to summarize a basic tenet of "the opposition".) I can just
hear the outcry from these folks if the board did suggest a step towards
"another way of managing the hierarchy". I just don't see this as a
viable method for trying to get people to work together. No matter what
the outcome might be, there would be a large contingent of folks who
could not be satisfied, and their conclusion would be that they were not
heard.
I'm also sincerely curious as to why you feel that the "experiment has
failed". What goal has the board failed to meet? I'm not thrilled at
what I see happening to Usenet, but I am unwilling to put the blame for
that on the board. If Russ or tale or any individual was heading up
big-8 administration, do you really believe that things would be any
different?
There are only two things for which I take the board to task.
The first is the failure to institute some kind of voting system for
"users". As much as I would like to see that happen, my experience in
the UVV back in "the day" helps me understand why such a system is
simply impossible to implement today.
The second is the amount of fighting that's going on and the situation
that I mentioned above of capable people spending all their effort
trying to unseat the board rather than doing something constructive for
Usenet. I see that as a consequence of the fact that there is a board,
not as a consequence of *this* board. The only way that that will
change is if some individual returns to take over the reigns, and I'm
not sure that even that could ever happen now.
> At the same time, I believe that the current "anti-Board" should
> accept that their (your) protest has failed, and that the rudiments of
> the system are what they are; and that they (you) should open an honest
> discussion with the Board in order to find ways to either improve the
> system or to reform it. I think that discussion should begin with an
> admission that flames, hatred, and incomplete ideas are not an adequate
> base for these attempted reforms, and sincerely look to find a way to work
> to help Usenet that isn't tearing it down in the mean time.
I know that I lack objectivity, but the problem I see here is that the
current "anti-Board" believes that they have tried to have honest
discussion and have made sincere suggestions, and that that discussion
and those suggestions have been rebuffed. To me, it's a case of the
opposition saying, "You didn't do what we asked, so therefore you're not
listening to us."
> These views probably aren't compatible. All I really know is that
> we don't even have a place to really talk about it, and that we're never
> going to work out a resolution without talking.
The quandary that I see here is that the anti-board group wants to start
discussions with an admission of failure and the goal of dissolving the
board, while the board is unwilling to say from the beginning that the
goal is to dissolve the board. When the two groups are that far apart,
it's difficult to even begin a discussion.
The other thing that's missing for me is any hint of what the anti-board
group wants as an alternative. Replace the board by another board with
different people on it? Replace the board by an individual? Put the
big-8 on life support? To me, the board isn't optimum but it is in
place. It seems more productive to try to work with the current
structure than to simply demand that the board step down without
suggesting what specific mechanism should replace it.
>> But other than that, I really don't think anything will change. As for
>> escalation, well, it takes two, doesn't it?
>
> No, it doesn't.
Well . . . yes, I think it really does take both sides to actually
escalate a problem. One side can yell *real loud* but if the other side
ignores the trolling, there's not really an escalation. The problem is
trying to determine the boundary between a sincere attempt to have
dialog and an outright troll.
>> Let's see if this makes it through the moderators...
>
> As I think I noted when I first posted in this thread, I agree - I
> don't that that news.groups.proposals is really the right place for this
> conversation. news.groups is similarly unsuitable. Neutral ground must be
> found if we expect a resolution.
While this isn't the "right place", other than news.groups it's probably
the only place. Maybe we, as the moderation team for n.g.p, made an
error in allowing this discussion to occur here. It's not a decision
that we made without discussion. But here we are. It's not perfect,
but I don't think that perfection exists for this discussion.
Please try to keep it civil. There's a difference between expressing
your opinion forcefully on the issue and expressing your opinion on the
participants' parentage.
> My only suggestions are probably not helpful - 'news.groups.policy'
> seems like a good name, and the moderation should be very hands-off but
> definitely present and handled by a neutral third party. If you have any
> suggestions beyond that, please, offer them!
I'm not sure that this elusive "neutral third party" exists. Why would
anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in Usenet spend time as a
moderator? Anyone with a vested interest in Usenet isn't neutral.
All three options -- unmoderated, robo-moderated, or hand-moderated --
have their advantages and disadvantages. Here we are in
news.groups.proposals. We, the moderation team, will do the best we can
to be neutral. That's the best we can do.
Doug Freyburger
> tskir...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote:
> >David Saur <s...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> >> Mediation requires that both sides be honest about previous mistakes and
> >> have a genuine desire to work together in the future. Do you really see
> >> evidence that this is the current situation (or could be the situation in
> >> the next 12 months)?
When members of one side make regular accusations of
lies, honesty isn't on the table irrespective of the accuracy
of such accusations.
> > I do not believe that this is the current situation. I also don't
> >think that it will be the situation in 12 months; but I think that it
> >*could* be, if there's a willingness to lay the groundwork for it now.
If this refers to the noise level in NG it's been there since before
the board existed and is therefor not *about* the board in spite
of the current rhetoric.
> The whole problem, as I see it, is that we do not have
> a common understanding of what it means to be "honest
> about previous mistakes" and what a "genuine desire
> to work together in the future" would look like.
I see it going depper than that, and not just because I don't
think honesty can be on the table in the current environment
and not just because I don't believe specific folks have any
interest in working with anyone no matter what.
> The existence and legitimacy of the board is
> the fundamental issue. Everything else is
> secondary. I don't think that we can "lay
> the groundwork" for a resolution of this
> disagreement now or twelve months from now.
The board appears to want a managed Big-8. Managed
means not free speech. So I think the real issue is that
some want absolute free speech on UseNet ignoring that
leads to abusers driving out users. The polarizing effect
grows gradually and has been happening on Usenet for many
years. Yet the way out taken by web fora, moderation of
all boards, negates some of the greatest advantages of
UseNet if even one example of bad moderation happens.
It's interesting that this is a policy and philosophy discussion
no longer aplicable to the pre-RFD at the start of the thread.
Dave Sill
>
> I believe the problem is even more basic than that. I don't see either
> side willing to entertain the idea that they made a mistake. For the
> record, I've made numerous mistakes in my interactions with board
> members.
The board and various members have admitted mistakes already. Creating
the WoW group was obviously a mistake; we've admitted it, apologized,
and corrected it, as much as we could. That's just one example. And, of
course, we've all made mistakes in interacting with each other. But I'm
not holding any grudges, and I'll happily interact with anyone who
seriously wants to work with me or the board.
--
Dave Sill, not speaking for the board
Tim Skirvin
>> In large, I want to find a way so that everybody that cares about
>> Usenet can participate usefully towards improving it, with a minimum of
>> damage from those that want to hurt it, towards the goal of once again
>> making Usenet the preeminent discussion forum of the world.
> As much as it pains me to say this, I don't think your goal of "once
> again making Usenet the preeminent discussion forum of the world" is
> realistic.
You're probably right. But truth be told, I think that we're
a few years away from Something Big happening, where Usenet-like
technologies are forced upon existing systems, ala RSS and the like.
There won't be any central management, for good or ill; and many major
issues that have Usenet has faced and resolved will be faced again, and
probably not solved as well as they were here. In short, there will be a
massive waste of a lot of time and effort, unless somebody looks over at
the NNTP protocol and says "hey, this does 95% of what we want already,
and we can extend it!". I'm holding out hope for that latter option.)
In the mean time, if we can make useful steps to help Usenet while
attempting to reach our "preeminent discussion forum" goal, then I'm happy
to at least try.
> The current environment is a big disappointment to me. I was away from
> Usenet during the transition to the Board, and when I returned I was
> shocked at the changes. I was able to reconcile myself to the idea of
> the big-8 being managed by a board, but I continue to be appalled by the
> level of personal confrontation that this change has brought. The most
> painful part is to see people who I know could make a positive
> contribution caught up in throwing stones at the board.
I agree. In fact, I think that the extent to which I agree would
surprise many people here.
> There are only two things for which I take the board to task.
> The first is the failure to institute some kind of voting system for
> "users". As much as I would like to see that happen, my experience in
> the UVV back in "the day" helps me understand why such a system is
> simply impossible to implement today.
I do wish that we could have figured out a way to do this. I
still hope that somebody works to build the UVP, and makes something to
allow polling the Usenet user base. But I stopped holding my breath a
long time ago.
> The second is the amount of fighting that's going on and the situation
> that I mentioned above of capable people spending all their effort
> trying to unseat the board rather than doing something constructive for
> Usenet. I see that as a consequence of the fact that there is a board,
> not as a consequence of *this* board. The only way that that will
> change is if some individual returns to take over the reigns, and I'm
> not sure that even that could ever happen now.
I wish I had an answer for this one.
> While this isn't the "right place", other than news.groups it's probably
> the only place. Maybe we, as the moderation team for n.g.p, made an
> error in allowing this discussion to occur here. It's not a decision
> that we made without discussion. But here we are. It's not perfect,
> but I don't think that perfection exists for this discussion.
Thank you, NGP moderators, for allowing it. I'm sure I could
attempt to veer all of the discussion towards a specific proposal, but
we're definitely at the '[META]' level right now...
>> My only suggestions are probably not helpful - 'news.groups.policy'
>> seems like a good name, and the moderation should be very hands-off but
>> definitely present and handled by a neutral third party. If you have any
>> suggestions beyond that, please, offer them!
> I'm not sure that this elusive "neutral third party" exists. Why would
> anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in Usenet spend time as a
> moderator?
We could pay 'em.
More seriously, I do believe that such a beast may exist, but
perhaps that's just because I've *been* that beast so many times in the
past for other topics.
(Note that perfect neutrality isn't strictly necessary, only
the willingness and ability to *act* neutral, to the satisfaction of
interested parties. I've done this; I am not and never have been fully
neutral on the matter of Objectivism, but I have moderated the Objectivism
newsgroup as a neutral party for upwards of ten years now. Even when it
was discovered that I was [gasp!] a Libertarian, there was no uproar. It
may be possible that the same thing could happen here. For instance, who
would question the neutrality of Aahz?)
Tim Skirvin
>>> Why would you consider escalating "this fight"?
>> I don't want to escalate *any* fight, but in this case it's
>> apparently the least-energy path - that is, by simply existing, I am
>> making worse "this fight". (You're right to put it in quotes - I doubt
>> that I could even adequately define the sides.)
> I put it in quotes because I was quoting you. You used the phrase
> without quotes, so I assume you have defined the fight and the sides.
I have not so defined the sides or the fight, even in my own mind.
Even my discussion later in this post is fairly nebulous as to the sides
and the issues involved.
>>> What discussion, exactly, do you want to mediate?
>> In large, I want to find a way so that everybody that cares about
>> Usenet can participate usefully towards improving it, with a minimum of
>> damage from those that want to hurt it, towards the goal of once again
>> making Usenet the preeminent discussion forum of the world.
> well, there is a fundamental disagreement over what hurting usenet
> entails and who is doing actual damage.
Yes. Perhaps this is a good place to start talking? This is at
least something that has the potential of either being defined objectively,
or agreed upon by interested and reasonable parties.
>>> But other than that, I really don't think anything will change. As for
>>> escalation, well, it takes two, doesn't it?
>> No, it doesn't.
> Certainly it does. There are plenty of people in other groups who wish
> to escalate arguments with me. I ignore them, and nothing escalates.
But, on the other hand, that's not how this fight has worked. To
offer one example, there are those that are upset about the crossposting
of the bi-weekly "welcome to NGP" posting. Those that disagree have
escalated from angry words to forged moderation approvals over time; and
in the mean time, there have been no actions taken by myself or the Board.
That, to me, is a one-sided escalation.
Another example would be Bloxy's, and the recent escalation of
the attack against sci.crypt. As far as I know, nothing was done to
escalate these attacks except trying to avoid them.
> I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings about what is
> actually happening in "this fight" (that's quoting you again).
Well, let's be clear, then: what do you think is happening in
"this fight"?
My interpretation: I think that there is a core group of people
that feel marginalized by the current system, compared to how things used
to be. These people have joined forces with (at least) two pre-existing
groups: those that have always been comparatively "conservative" about
Usenet management, and the "kook fighters" of old. These groups have
grown to share the common goal of eliminating the current Board; but past
that, they have no consensus as to what they would want to replace the
Board with, or how they should reaching their goal.
On the other side, you have the Board and its allies. They -
we - believe that we've made something that works, and will probably
continue to work for some time to come. It's not perfect, certainly, but
it's certainly better than nothing, and probably better than any existing
alternative. We acknowledge, but do not fully understand, the resentment
caused by the change of system; but we don't know what to do about it.
And we don't know how to improve things any further, when those that
would otherwise offer the best suggestions are instead calling for our
heads. And after being cut the last dozen or so times we've extended our
hands in friendship, most of us have stopped trying to even be near the
semi-proclaimed "opposition".
Obviously, the latter part is from a source closer to the center,
but I hope you at least get the idea, and I hope that you can offer your
own interpretation of events as well. Perhaps we'll find something
reasonable in the middle.
>>> Let's see if this makes it through the moderators...
>> As I think I noted when I first posted in this thread, I agree - I
>> don't that that news.groups.proposals is really the right place for this
>> conversation. news.groups is similarly unsuitable. Neutral ground must be
>> found if we expect a resolution.
> Only if we expect the resolution that you wish.
No, it is only necessary if we expect a resolution satisfactory
(or at least only mildly distasteful) to all parties. If the status quo
is maintained, or if the Board is thrown out entirely, then perhaps things
could continue without a neutral meeting ground; but I don't see anything
in between working.
>> My only suggestions are probably not helpful - 'news.groups.policy'
>> seems like a good name, and the moderation should be very hands-off but
>> definitely present and handled by a neutral third party. If you have any
>> suggestions beyond that, please, offer them!
> I've offered my suggestions. And please, don't email me again.
So, concretely, your suggestion is that the Board should proclaim
itself and the entire process a failure, and start a discussion in
news.groups towards the goal of replacing itself entirely? This is what I
understand from <131120072213215899%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> .
Jim Kingdon
> means that the board would:
>
> -- confess that it should not exist
>
> -- return to the Golden Age (pick one:
> UUCP, Horton, spaf, tale,
> Creation Guidelines)
>
> -- abolish all of the changes made since 2005
Well, I don't follow news.groups enough to say what the critics are
for (for a variety of reasons we seem to hear more about what they are
against, and I doubt they all agree with each other anyway).
But I think there is a potential agenda which differs from the above,
and also from the way the board currently runs. Something like:
* The board should operate less behind closed doors (published votes,
public archives of the board list, etc).
* The board should stop seeing people who disagree with them as the
enemy. I'm thinking more of words than actions here - things like
describing news.groups as "toxic", and other comments I'm not
recalling just now. This is the most slippery of my bullet points
because it has to do with how the board sees the world, and what the
world's reaction is, more so than any one comment or action. And
I'm kind of making it sound like the board can make people like
them, which I don't especially believe (I'm sure that there will be
people who complain about anything which happens or anyone who seems
like a convenient target).
* Make it clear that the board's job is just maintaining a canonical
newsgroup list. Move most of the Usenet Volunteer Moderators and
other activities to be outside the authority of the board. In fact,
stop or cut back on use of words like "authority", "board", and
"management", which push people's buttons and arguably imply more
power than the board really has (or wants).
Do I support the above? Not necessarily. Do I think it would reduce
any of the animosity between the board and anti-board folks? I'm not
counting on it. Why do I even bother to make such a list? Well, I
guess just to mention other possibilities other than "abolish the
board" (as Tim Skirvin points out, it isn't even clear what that
means) or "keep everything as it is" (which itself depends on what you
mean by "everything").
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>Do you believe that the overwhelming majority of the board's critics do
>not acknowledge the board's legitimacy and that there just aren't enough
>critics (for lack of a better descriptor) who want "to redecorate the
>room" but keep the elephant (in some form) to make mediation worth the
>effort?
I see the two groups as quite distinct.
Those who do not acknowledge the board's legitimacy (for various
and sundry reasons) want to get the elephant out of the room
before working on other issues. They are NOT (in my view)
going to feed the elephant and talk to it in calm and measured
tones. It would be irrational for them to move on to other
issues when that is the most important problem to be resolved
or mistake to be rectified.
It reminds me of the old joke: "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln,
how did you enjoy the play?"
The second group who are willing to work on other issues
(improving propagation, developing tools, tweaking various
aspects of the system) seem to me to be people who have
(for sundry reasons) decided that the board isn't going
away soon and that they may as well do what they can to
make things better for the big-8 or Usenet.
I don't have a good sense of how big the two groups are.
>I accept that the board was picked by the former crew. My objections
>are not to your existence but to specific actions (and attitudes).
OK. Then it sounds as though you would be in the
second group, not the first.
>In another message you wrote, "The whole problem, as I see it, is that
>we do not have a common understanding of what it means to be "honest
>about previous mistakes" and what a "genuine desire to work together in
>the future" would look like."
>I believe the problem is even more basic than that. I don't see either
>side willing to entertain the idea that they made a mistake.
I'm content with the existence of the board. I think four of the
original eleven members are still on the board (Skirvin, Sill,
Lee, Moleski). We've added five new members (Kramer, McLaren,
Morgan, Nareid, Nixon). Strange things do happen, but my
guess is that the board is not going to burn out all at once
and disappear any time soon (as happened with spaf and tale,
I think).
I'm not willing to entertain the idea that it is
a mistake to have created a board to replace the
troika. I think it was a good decision.
I know that the board has made mistakes--we've
reversed ourselves on some decisions, we've changed
our procedures, we've modified the FAQs, and we're
willing to try different things that may not work
out.
I was initially against the creation of n.g.p. I
was wrong. It's worked out better than I thought
it could. I'm deeply grateful to the mods for the
work they do behind the scenes. This is one of
the board's decisions that other people consider
one of its greatest mistakes. I don't really have
an open mind on this, so I'm not willing to entertain
the idea that n.g.p was a mistake.
>For the
>record, I've made numerous mistakes in my interactions with board
>members.
Me, too. And with other posters as well. But I don't
expect people in the first group to be mollifed by
reconciliation at this level. Giving the elephant
a pedicure is nice, but it doesn't get him out of
the living room.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<1195069708.2...@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
> ... It's interesting that this is a policy and philosophy discussion
>no longer aplicable to the pre-RFD at the start of the thread.
Not in a literal sense.
Jim had the news.groups.policy RFD on the table shortly
before this.
He seems to be seeking a solution to the problems he
has encountered in following discussions in news.groups
and news.groups.proposals.
Those problems, in turn, are related to the tensions
between those who more or less accept the board and
those who more or less reject the board.
So it seems to me that we're dealing with the spirit
of his recent proposals rather than the letter of the
subject line: what alternatives might there be to
the current situation?
David Saur
>The quandary that I see here is that the anti-board group wants to start
>discussions with an admission of failure and the goal of dissolving the
>board, while the board is unwilling to say from the beginning that the
>goal is to dissolve the board. When the two groups are that far apart,
>it's difficult to even begin a discussion.
There certainly is a vocal anti-board contingent voicing that opinion. Do
you believe that there is a nice, clean and neat line separating board
members and their critics? That all board critics want to start mediation
"with an admission of failure and the goal of dissolving the board?" If you
do, then mediation really is a total waste of time.
Are there board critics who are willing to compromise? Are there any board
members willing to compromise? If there are, those 2 groups should start
discussions, leaving intractable critics and intractable board members out
in the cold. There will always be trolls. Why even hope for 100% harmony?
David Saur
>So: What "mediation" are you talking about? What would be the goal of
>such "mediation"?
I am not the peace broker Tim S is seeking. A Mediator needs the respect of
both sides (so he can earn trust), and he needs to believe that there is a
willingness to compromise on both sides. I don't meet those criteria.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... We acknowledge, but do not fully understand, the resentment
>caused by the change of system ...
I think you need to speak in "I" statements here.
I acknowledge the resentment and think that I understand
its various roots. Some go way back to when tale took
over from spaf; some date from Russ and the troika;
some date from the unexpected change from Todd's original
handoff scheme and what we did in fact (no confirmation
by a public vote); some date from the change in the
creation/RFD system.
"We", the board, do not have an official position on
any of this material and I doubt that "we" ever will.
> ... but we don't know what to do about it.
I plan to keep on voting for the continuation of what
we have been doing. If something better comes along,
I'll vote for that.
David Saur
>I was initially against the creation of n.g.p. I
>was wrong. It's worked out better than I thought
>it could. I'm deeply grateful to the mods for the
>work they do behind the scenes. This is one of
>the board's decisions that other people consider
>one of its greatest mistakes. I don't really have
>an open mind on this, so I'm not willing to entertain
>the idea that n.g.p was a mistake.
This is one example of why I couldn't be a mediator. My response to you
would be that you can place ngp on the "last items to be considered" list
but everything must be open for discussion/negotiation/compromise. How
could you convince critics that ngp actually serves a useful purpose if it
can't even be discussed?
If the critics cease calling for the board's resignation (a prerequisite for
true discussion), then the board needs to openly discuss all of its
decisions (a prerequisite for true discussion).
As I said in another post, I'm not the peace broker TS seeks.
K. A. Cannon
<snip>
> My interpretation: I think that there is a core group of people
>that feel marginalized by the current system, compared to how things used
>to be. These people have joined forces with (at least) two pre-existing
>groups: those that have always been comparatively "conservative" about
>Usenet management, and the "kook fighters" of old. These groups have
>grown to share the common goal of eliminating the current Board; but past
>that, they have no consensus as to what they would want to replace the
>Board with, or how they should reaching their goal.
The whole "two groups" theory is wrong.
There is a third group, which I include myself in, who have become
pretty fed up with the current squabbling between the other two
groups. Mostly I keep my own counsel now due to the simple fact that
neither side is going to move and inch.
I have tried to be a contributor, and I have tried to hold true to my
beliefs. I have been attacked by both sides because I am in the middle
ground.
I am frankly disgusted by the intransigency of the B8MB to consider
opposing view points. I am also appalled by the "resign now" and "you
are all ****heads" flamistic comments by the opposition.
So we have two camps.....and there is a common ground that nobody form
either camp dares to tred.
Voting/balloting - It can be done....and shame on the board for not
giving it a thorough consideration....especially since some of the
board members can code and have a knowledge of the technology
involved.
And the mindset of "we are the B8MB, we know what's good for you" has
really gotten people mad. There needs to be more openness.
I've been doing this moderation thing for a year now...and I had hoped
that somehow something would get going to solve the impass.
Now there's discussion...great....we will see where it leads.
There are other alterantives as well...
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>> For others, being "honest about previous mistakes"
>> means that the board would:
>>
>> -- confess that it should not exist
>>
>> -- return to the Golden Age (pick one:
>> UUCP, Horton, spaf, tale,
>> Creation Guidelines)
>>
>> -- abolish all of the changes made since 2005
>Well, I don't follow news.groups enough to say what the critics are
>for (for a variety of reasons we seem to hear more about what they are
>against, and I doubt they all agree with each other anyway).
I doubt they all agree with each other, too.
>But I think there is a potential agenda which differs from the above,
>and also from the way the board currently runs. Something like:
>* The board should operate less behind closed doors (published votes,
> public archives of the board list, etc).
We publish the results of board votes in response to RFDs.
We adopted a consensus system after someone suggested in
news.groups that it would be a good idea.
I am not open to the idea that we should conduct all of
our business in public and keep public archives of that
discussion. That is not a trivial change and would not
have trivial consequences for the way that we get things
done.
>* The board should stop seeing people who disagree with them as the
> enemy.
"The board" has no such official view.
Various members of the board have their own take
on the issue. I've tried to indicate in a post
I just made in response to Tim that he should not
use "we" when he really is speaking just for himself.
At this level, there is no "we".
> I'm thinking more of words than actions here - things like
> describing news.groups as "toxic", and other comments I'm not
> recalling just now. This is the most slippery of my bullet points
> because it has to do with how the board sees the world, and what the
> world's reaction is, more so than any one comment or action. And
> I'm kind of making it sound like the board can make people like
> them, which I don't especially believe (I'm sure that there will be
> people who complain about anything which happens or anyone who seems
> like a convenient target).
The board has never officially adopted a text that includes
any statements about the atmosphere in news.groups. Please
do not attribute to all of us the opinions expressed by some
of us. tinw.
>* Make it clear that the board's job is just maintaining a canonical
> newsgroup list.
I think that is clear.
I don't understand why people don't understand that.
<shrug>
> Move most of the Usenet Volunteer Moderators and
> other activities to be outside the authority of the board.
There is no reason why the UVM has to be part of the board's
activities. We are moderately well organized and can do
things like maintain mailing lists and the wiki. If the
UVM decided to detach itself from the board, I would not
object.
> In fact,
> stop or cut back on use of words like "authority", "board", and
> "management", which push people's buttons and arguably imply more
> power than the board really has (or wants).
The word "authority" does not appear in any of our official
documents on the wiki.
"Board" and "management" seem to me like useful terms.
Every circumlocution would have its own problems.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>>I was initially against the creation of n.g.p. I
>>was wrong. It's worked out better than I thought
>>it could. I'm deeply grateful to the mods for the
>>work they do behind the scenes. This is one of
>>the board's decisions that other people consider
>>one of its greatest mistakes. I don't really have
>>an open mind on this, so I'm not willing to entertain
>>the idea that n.g.p was a mistake.
>This is one example of why I couldn't be a mediator. My response to you
>would be that you can place ngp on the "last items to be considered" list
>but everything must be open for discussion/negotiation/compromise. How
>could you convince critics that ngp actually serves a useful purpose if it
>can't even be discussed?
I didn't say people couldn't discuss it.
I am trying to tell you where I stand on the issue
and why I take the stand that I do.
>If the critics cease calling for the board's resignation (a prerequisite for
>true discussion) ...
I don't see why those who hold that view should be
silenced. Getting rid of the board is a valid
option, even though I oppose doing so. Folks who
disagree with me on this point have as much right
to their point of view and (in my view) should
have the right to express that opinion. I can
see why people who hold this view would not want
the issue taken off the table as a "prerequisite
for true discussion."
I do see why the n.g.p mods might not allow "go
away" posts as part of other discussions.
> ... then the board needs to openly discuss all of its
>decisions (a prerequisite for true discussion).
Some decisions have been made and are at present
not up for review. I've been through the clean
sheet process once. I've explained why I have
voted the way I have. Not all board votes have
gone my way, but none of the decisions of the
board have made me think I should resign. I
don't have an open mind on all of the decisions
we have made and I don't want to start from
scratch and go through the whole process all
over again.
>As I said in another post, I'm not the peace broker TS seeks.
Me, neither.
Kathy Morgan
> Some people see the actions of the board in sending PGP signed create
> and remove messages as actually harming usenet because they change the
> structure. Posts or lack of posts do not do that. Posts containing or
> not containing vulgarities and insults do not do that.
Are you saying then that you agree with Wayne Browne, that there was
some perfect moment in time for Usenet, and there should never have been
any changes in the group list from that perfect moment?
> I've offered my suggestions. And please, don't email me again.
I didn't see them (other than "resign now.") If you do have practical
suggestions that might help Usenet, would you please post them here?
--
Kathy
Jeremy Nixon
>> Or would you suggest that we simply delete the PGP key and go
>> home?
>
> Give it to people who will share the power, not covet it.
Which power would that be? You're the one always going on about how we
can't do anything more than make requests. We don't "run Usenet". We
maintain a list of newsgroups.
Moreover, I'm still not seeing anything substantive about what it is,
exactly, that you want. I see what you *don't* want, but absolutely
nothing constructive.
>> What do you *want* out of Big-8 management?
>
> The keys when you leave.
You know, the sad thing is that, before you drank the news.groups Kool-Aid,
I actually listened to you, took you seriously, and thought you had something
to contribute.
--
Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
(formerly jer...@exit109.com)
Jeremy Nixon
> I am frankly disgusted by the intransigency of the B8MB to consider
> opposing view points.
And yet, when Mark Kramer applied for Board membership, making it clear that
he disagreed with the Board and that the main policy he was willing to
support was the one that the policy can be changed, he (easily) got himself
elected to membership.
This is why I've had it with all the claims that we don't consider opposing
viewpoints, or that we don't want dissent, or that we don't listen to
arguments against our own views: because these claims are based on nothing
but pure fantasy.
People continue to put forth these absurd claims, and I can't stop them from
lying, but I don't have to waste my time listening to it.
> Now there's discussion...great....we will see where it leads.
Discussion is fine. What I don't care about is the idea that we *must* try
to work with the so-called "anti-board" bunch in news.groups. This group is
a tiny handful of people, not representative of much of anything; they have
nothing of value to contribute, and no desire to make any constructive
contribution to Usenet; and I think trying to "work with" them would be a
total waste of time. I've tried that already. I'm not interested. The
people who might have something to contribute already post here anyway.
I don't care to waste my time arguing with a bunch of liars any more.
David Saur
>In article <13jmss2...@corp.supernews.com>, David Saur
>I didn't ask if you would mediate, David. I asked what you mean by
>"mediation" in this context.
Standard English definition: the mediator is someone who helps people find
common ground for discussions to resolve disagreements; the mediation is the
guided discussions.
Aatu Koskensilta
> People who interpret the situation this way do not want
> to have a long, thoughtful, mediated conversation about
> tweaking this or that aspect of the system--rearranging
> the deck chairs on the Titanic. The system is sinking
> because some culprit (spaf, tale, Russ, skirv) seized
> control, sailed stupidly, and is sinking the ship.
> From this point of view, the only remedy is for the
> board to repent of its errors, resign, and return
> the system to some earlier stage of its development.
> Working with the board on any aspect of the system
> is, from this standpoint, irrational.
Indeed -- as I said in news.groups, on this conception trying to remedy the
ills of the system by getting involved makes about as much sense as joining
Scientology in attempt to turn it into a chain of nurseries for injured
kittens. So, as long as the board is unwilling to step down, there is no
placating those who view the situation this way, and there's nothing you can
do except ignore the repeated chanting of "Resign! Resign!". The problem
with this solution is that many, or at least some, of the chanters are, in
fact, intelligent and articulate posters, often raising valid concerns and
making interesting points.
It is understandable, though unfortunate, that some -- most, all? -- board
members be unwilling to interact with people holding such a view. I have
suggested in the past, to no end, as always, that they simply ignore any
insults, insinuations of lying, etc, and simply concentrate on whatever
nuggets of insight they find, whatever cogent reasoning, illuminating
argumentation, sober reflection can be gleaned. Quoting Torkel Franzén on
how to make oneself a nuisance in the news:
As a major nuisance, you will insist on posters explaining their arguments
or justifying their assertions regarding various matters. They will try to
divert you from this by introducing any number of new issues, by
challenging you to respond to some irrelevant claim, by daring you to
ignore some statement of theirs, by making absurd assertions calculated to
draw your fire, by introducing insults and speculations as to your motives.
The general rule - illustrated above in a couple of special cases - is to
ignore all challenges, ignore all insults, ignore all dares, ignore all
irrelevant claims, however absurd. Just stick patiently to the point at
issue. Neither take any offered bait in the form of a juicy red herring,
nor defend yourself against any accusations or insinuations.
Alas, this advice is often difficult and frustrating to follow, at least if
one is not as twisted as Torkel or me. Happily, there are also intelligent
and articulate posters who are not opposed to the existence of the board per
se, or are at least willing to grudgingly accept the current system as a
fait accompli, but who find this or that idea, decision, proposal ill-headed
or "mind-bogglingly bizarre". Interaction with such people is probably less
taxing on board members; I believe the board should do their best to make
these people feel that their opinion and advice is respected, carefully
considered, and so on -- otherwise they will soon come to the view that the
board is just as bad as those calling for its resignation claim.
I also lament the unwillingness of board members to participate in
news.groups, floating new ideas, discussing stuff, offering explanations,
etc. Among those who find the board not objectionable enough to refrain from
all involvement in the system I seem to be in minority; perhaps proponents
need a safe place to discuss proposals, but in my opinion those running the
system should be willing to have a chat with the hoi-polloi in an open,
unmoderated forum. But each to their own.
As my half-serious proposal for a moratorium on proposals on management
related groups and policies suggests, it is also my opinion that at this
point there is no need to fiddle with the structure we have in place. Let's
wait for (real) proposals, from users, and see what we can make of them.
On another note, some things are too important to be taken seriously; Big-8
management is important for those of us who care about the Big-8, but in the
grand scheme of things, even on Usenet, it's nothing to get worked up over.
As the saying goes, this is Usenet, no-one dies, though the pessimist might
recall that, as Henry Kissinger reportedly said, the reason student debates
are so vitriolic is because the stakes are so low.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Tim Skirvin
>> Or would you suggest that we simply delete the PGP key and go
>> home?
> Give it to people who will share the power, not covet it.
And who would that be?
>> No more groups would be created or removed in the Big-8, possibly
>> ever, certainly not until somebody went through the trouble to create a
>> new key. Perhaps the checkgroups would be turned off, too. Would this
>> match your desires?
> I'm guessing that you're making a threat. So much for civility.
Gary, that was not a threat, or anything resembling it; it's
simply the reality of what happens if we simply shut down without passing
off the key to some person or entity. No key => no signed newgroups;
that's all there is to it.
>> It is not possible to go back to what once was
> This is not at all true.
Well, how would you suggest we go back? How would you do it?
>> - on Usenet as well as in Real Life. The best you can possibly do is
>> to approximate it, and that takes a lot of work.
> You're not even trying to do that. You haven't even tried.
That's true; I don't think that rolling back the clock is the
right answer. Things were not perfect in the Old Days; and I think that
the process we have right now is superior to what we once had *in this
day and age*.
>> What do you *want* out of Big-8 management?
> The keys when you leave.
So you want to run the Big-8?
How would you run it?
Chris Barnes
>> then the board needs to openly discuss all of its
>> decisions (a prerequisite for true discussion).
>
That would effectively eliminate quite a few people who would otherwise
participate.
Myself for example. I have neither the time nor the inclination to
participate in a group where unabated spam, flame wars, and OT nonsense
is allowed to predominate.
In other words, the idealistic world in which all discussions are open
to everyone simply does not exist. One way or another, someone is going
to get excluded.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
"Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay."
Tim Skirvin
> Are there any board members willing to compromise?
Yes, at least one. If there's something useful worth negotiating
over, and as long as the compromise won't hurt Usenet (or my principles),
then yes, I will compromise.
Tim Skirvin
>>>> I don't want to escalate *any* fight, but in this case it's
>>>> apparently the least-energy path - that is, by simply existing, I am
>>>> making worse "this fight". (You're right to put it in quotes - I doubt
>>>> that I could even adequately define the sides.)
>>> I put it in quotes because I was quoting you. You used the phrase
>>> without quotes, so I assume you have defined the fight and the sides.
>> I have not so defined the sides or the fight, even in my own mind.
>> Even my discussion later in this post is fairly nebulous as to the sides
>> and the issues involved.
> Then you were just being provocative by using the terms "this fight"
> and "escalate", IMO. Therefore, this will be my last post to you in
> this thread.
You're unwilling to talk to me anymore because you think that I'm
being "provocative"? Okay.
>>>>> What discussion, exactly, do you want to mediate?
>>>> In large, I want to find a way so that everybody that cares about
>>>> Usenet can participate usefully towards improving it, with a minimum of
>>>> damage from those that want to hurt it, towards the goal of once again
>>>> making Usenet the preeminent discussion forum of the world.
>>> well, there is a fundamental disagreement over what hurting usenet
>>> entails and who is doing actual damage.
>> Yes. Perhaps this is a good place to start talking?
> No. This is a moderated group,
You misunderstand; perhaps this *point* is a good place to start
talking?
>> So, concretely, your suggestion is that the Board should proclaim
>> itself and the entire process a failure, and start a discussion in
>> news.groups towards the goal of replacing itself entirely? This is what I
>> understand from <131120072213215899%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> .
> I accept that's what you understand. Unfortunately, it's not what I
> said.
> What I said was:
> "Personally, I think the current board should accept that their (your)
> experiment has failed, and open an honest discussion in news.groups to
> try to find another way of managing the hierarchy. I think that
> discussion should begin with an admission of failure and a sincere
> request for help designing that new way."
Okay, that is your suggestion. Noted. (This was what I attempted
to paraphrase, so at least we're on the same page.)
How would we go about doing that, concretely? And what goals would
you suggest we have in mind, in large? (I'm trying to look at this from a
project management point of view, so that goalposts can be set and
monitored.)
Tim Skirvin
> I have suggested in the past, to no end, as always, that they simply
> ignore any insults, insinuations of lying, etc, and simply concentrate
> on whatever nuggets of insight they find, whatever cogent reasoning,
> illuminating argumentation, sober reflection can be gleaned.
I have seen your suggestion. I have attempted, at various times
in the past, to live up to it. I have found that trying to do so in an
environment such as news.groups causes me great personal distress, rarely
actually works in the long run, and tends to result only in nuggets of
insight that are vanishingly small and rare.
In short, experience has shown me that it is not worth digging.
If somebody has ideas that are worthwhile and wants me to listen to them,
then they can dig those nuggets out themselves and hand them to me
cleaned. If my ear is not required, then I'll stay out of it.
> On another note, some things are too important to be taken seriously; Big-8
> management is important for those of us who care about the Big-8, but in the
> grand scheme of things, even on Usenet, it's nothing to get worked up over.
*nod* And this is what has led me to the decision that, if I've
gotten to the point that I want to throw something at the screen, my best
bet is to simply walk away.
Tim Skirvin
> Voting/balloting - It can be done....and shame on the board for not
> giving it a thorough consideration....
Kevin, I want to be very clear on this - polling and/or voting was
considered, several times, *many* times in fact, in many forms and in many
ways, over long periods and in discussions of various levels of technical
and social depth. It was rejected.
Why? In part, because we didn't believe that we could do it
properly, and to wait until it was done properly handled would hold up
every other process that was needed. In part, because less-well-done
polling or voting was not trusted, and was considered counterproductive as
a result. And in part, because we were not the right people for the job,
and nobody else was willing to step up to the plate.
Since then, I have literally *begged* people to work on this
problem, to address these points. I have poured work into the Usenet
Volunteer Pollsters, so that many of the administrative hassles would at
least be taken care of by anybody that did want to solve the problem. I
have pledged to at least listen to the results of a reasonable polling or
voting system. And I have waited patiently, hoping that somebody is
willing to pick up the torch, horrified that I'm the closest thing to a
banner carrier on this issue on which I consider myself so unequipped to
handle.
And through all of this, I have been told again and again, by
people such as yourself, that I have not even *considered* the idea. I
don't think that you quite understand what a deep insult this is.
Kevin, I respect you. I think that you may well be the kind of
person that could bring things together, and make this whole process work
again for everyone that really wants to make Usenet better. But, even so,
please don't insult me, or the rest of the Board, like this again.
Tim Skirvin
>> ... We acknowledge, but do not fully understand, the resentment
>> caused by the change of system ...
> I think you need to speak in "I" statements here. [...] "We", the board,
> do not have an official position on any of this material and I doubt
> that "we" ever will.
Actually, I don't. I am not speaking for the Board - I rarely
*do* speak for the Board - but I am trying to interpret the collective
thought process in this case, from my (admittedly biased) perspective.
I'm not speaking for you, but I'm not really just reporting my own
thoughts either; I'm trying to summarize the collective view. (This is
tricky, and I guess I'm not really that good at it).
In short, I'm no more speaking for the "Board side" than I am for
the "anti-Board side". I can't even properly define them!
Doug Freyburger
>
> The whole "two groups" theory is wrong.
Kevin and I agree on very few points. This is one of them.
> I am frankly disgusted by the intransigency of the B8MB to consider
> opposing view points.
For comparison I'm frankly disgusted the board members don't
just set ther killfiles on mamximum and proceed to ignore those
who have decided to become trolls. Consider that in this thread
and other recent thread in NGP some who habitually attack in
unmoderated newsgroups have decided to become civil enough
for their opinions to be posted.
> I am also appalled by the "resign now" and "you
> are all ****heads" flamistic comments by the opposition.
Thing is, such claims should land the poster in a killfile for a
long time. Post material that gets you plonked, and any fair
view of humanity means your further posts are going to be
ignored. Troll post are a choice each and every time and
each and every time the choice is to make your further posts
ignored. A number of the regulars on NG are ignored because
they make that choice and thus their complaints are simply
more noise. The fact that posters with a history of incivility
have been posting to NGP says 1) The moderation software
does not use killfiles and 2) They don't have to be trolls full
time so all they need do is stop trolling and eventually thier
entires in killfiles can time out.
> So we have two camps.....and there is a common ground that nobody form
> either camp dares to tred.
Far more than two camps, but good use of killfiles does tend
to reduce it to look like that. The ones who decide to enter
the killfiles and the ones who don't.
> Voting/balloting - It can be done....and shame on the board for not
> giving it a thorough consideration....especially since some of the
> board members can code and have a knowledge of the technology
> involved.
The board members have repeatedly asked for anyone to step
forward to do the necessary work. Should certain members of the
board resign specifically to have time to attempt such voting
software? If it worked and voting started to mean something, it
would have been worth it.
The problem I see is the people whose votes should matter (the
prospective users of the groups or policies) tend to be unaware
of the discussion and the people whose votes should be ignored
(the ones with a history of all complaints no suggestions) tend
to be present and ready to vote. Yet a voting system that uses
a killfile is bluntly unsatisfactory. How any of this can be
resolved with software I can't imagine.
> And the mindset of "we are the B8MB, we know what's good for you" has
> really gotten people mad. There needs to be more openness.
The list of obvious groups. Check. We don't actually disagree
on every topic, just on most topics.
> I've been doing this moderation thing for a year now...and I had hoped
> that somehow something would get going to solve the impass.
I think your efforts have contributed - NGP *has been* the solution
to the impasse. The rate of RFDs by non-board members is higher
than it was prior to the board's existance.
> Now there's discussion...great....we will see where it leads.
I want policy discussion to be allowed on NG.proposals if
NG.policy is not created moderated. Essentially NGP
becoming NG.moderated. With the standard result of any
pair of moderated/unmoderated newsgroups that the mod
gets less traffic but higher signal and sufficient noise on
unmod gets mod treated as a bomb shelter until the noise
level drops again.
> There are other alterantives as well...
Other than web fora, of course. I'm sure both you and I mean
internal to UseNet though we are extremely unlikely to view
alternatives the same. I want the strength of UseNet and the
strength of web fora together in the same place, yet that means
something extremely different to me than what it probably means
to you.
Tim Skirvin
>>> Then you were just being provocative by using the terms "this fight"
>>> and "escalate", IMO. Therefore, this will be my last post to you in
>>> this thread.
>> You're unwilling to talk to me anymore because you think that I'm
>> being "provocative"? Okay.
> No. Because you say something, then deny you meant it.
No, that's not what I did. I used the best words I could find to
express a complex position, and tried to clarify when it looked like there
was a misunderstanding; that's not denial.
>>>> Yes. Perhaps this is a good place to start talking?
>>> No. This is a moderated group,
>> You misunderstand; perhaps this *point* is a good place to start
>> talking?
> In an unmoderated group. I've been crystal clear on this point.
Yes, you have, but that's not my point at all. I suggest that we
talk *about* "what hurting Usenet entails and who is doing actual damage".
Does this seem like a good initial topic?
>>> "Personally, I think the current board should accept that their (your)
>>> experiment has failed, and open an honest discussion in news.groups to
>>> try to find another way of managing the hierarchy. I think that
>>> discussion should begin with an admission of failure and a sincere
>>> request for help designing that new way."
>> Okay, that is your suggestion. Noted. (This was what I attempted
>> to paraphrase, so at least we're on the same page.)
> That wasn't a paraphrase. That was an attempt to redefine what I said.
No, that was a paraphrase. Really. Perhaps it would help if you
tried to paraphrase my position? To repeat:
[...] I believe that the current "anti-Board" should accept that their
(your) protest has failed, and that the rudiments of the system are
what they are; and that they (you) should open an honest discussion
with the Board in order to find ways to either improve the system or to
reform it. I think that discussion should begin with an admission that
flames, hatred, and incomplete ideas are not an adequate base for these
attempted reforms, and sincerely look to find a way to work to help
Usenet that isn't tearing it down in the mean time.
> Kathy attempted the same thing yesterday.
You seem to be looking for attacks. I'm doing my best to treat
you and your ideas with respect; can you do the same for me?
>> How would we go about doing that, concretely? And what goals would
>> you suggest we have in mind, in large? (I'm trying to look at this from a
>> project management point of view, so that goalposts can be set and
>> monitored.)
> I'm prepared to discuss those points in an unmoderated group.
If you want to talk, talk here, or suggest something better. I'm
not prepared to discuss this in news.groups, if that's what you're asking
for.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
wrote in <DVT_i.252470$FG6....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>:
>> ... From this point of view, the only remedy is for the
>> board to repent of its errors, resign, and return
>> the system to some earlier stage of its development.
>> Working with the board on any aspect of the system
>> is, from this standpoint, irrational.
>Indeed -- as I said in news.groups, on this conception trying to remedy the
>ills of the system by getting involved makes about as much sense as joining
>Scientology in attempt to turn it into a chain of nurseries for injured
>kittens.
Yes, exactly, although you never took those words out
of my mouth. :-O
>So, as long as the board is unwilling to step down, there is no
>placating those who view the situation this way, and there's nothing you can
>do except ignore the repeated chanting of "Resign! Resign!". The problem
>with this solution is that many, or at least some, of the chanters are, in
>fact, intelligent and articulate posters, often raising valid concerns and
>making interesting points.
If they're really good points, I expect that others will
affirm them and that we'll get the message eventually.
>It is understandable, though unfortunate, that some -- most, all? -- board
>members be unwilling to interact with people holding such a view.
Those of us who read news.groups do so using our own personal
methods that are not under the control of the board. Steve Bonine
started some @#$%&+~ thread that I felt obliged to read every post
in. I guess I have Irish Alzheimher's--all I remember now is the
resentment.
>I have
>suggested in the past, to no end, as always, that they simply ignore any
>insults, insinuations of lying, etc, and simply concentrate on whatever
>nuggets of insight they find, whatever cogent reasoning, illuminating
>argumentation, sober reflection can be gleaned.
I'm sure that's how some members of the board read the group.
> ... I also lament the unwillingness of board members to participate in
>news.groups, floating new ideas, discussing stuff, offering explanations,
>etc.
There was a time in 2005-2006 when I was one of the top
posters in news.groups. BTDT. There comes a point when
I feel that I've said my say and it's time to put my
Usenet energy somewhere else.
>Among those who find the board not objectionable enough to refrain from
>all involvement in the system I seem to be in minority; perhaps proponents
>need a safe place to discuss proposals, but in my opinion those running the
>system should be willing to have a chat with the hoi-polloi in an open,
>unmoderated forum. But each to their own.
I'm satisfied that we have enough eyes on n.g. I don't want
to make it a law that all board members must make so many
posts in n.g per week.
>As my half-serious proposal for a moratorium on proposals on management
>related groups and policies suggests, it is also my opinion that at this
>point there is no need to fiddle with the structure we have in place. Let's
>wait for (real) proposals, from users, and see what we can make of them.
OK by me.
>On another note, some things are too important to be taken seriously; Big-8
>management is important for those of us who care about the Big-8, but in the
>grand scheme of things, even on Usenet, it's nothing to get worked up over.
>As the saying goes, this is Usenet, no-one dies, though the pessimist might
>recall that, as Henry Kissinger reportedly said, the reason student debates
>are so vitriolic is because the stakes are so low.
:o)
Marty
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<4f418d1d-46d8-4f22...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>"K. A. Cannon" <kcan...@insurgent.orgy> wrote:
>> I am frankly disgusted by the intransigency of the B8MB to consider
>> opposing view points.
>For comparison I'm frankly disgusted the board members don't
>just set ther killfiles on mamximum and proceed to ignore those
>who have decided to become trolls.
Aatu wants us to talk to the trolls, quietly and politely.
You want us not to.
If we talk to them, he's pleased and you're not.
I'm just noting the diametrically opposed advice we're
getting in this thread. ;o)
Marty
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<tskirvin.20071115152110$5a...@cairo.ks.uiuc.edu>:
>"K. A. Cannon" <kca...@insurgent.orgy> writes:
>> Voting/balloting - It can be done....and shame on the board for not
>> giving it a thorough consideration....
> Kevin, I want to be very clear on this - polling and/or voting was
>considered, several times, *many* times in fact, in many forms and in many
>ways, over long periods and in discussions of various levels of technical
>and social depth. It was rejected.
> Why? In part, because we didn't believe that we could do it
>properly, and to wait until it was done properly handled would hold up
>every other process that was needed. In part, because less-well-done
>polling or voting was not trusted, and was considered counterproductive as
>a result. And in part, because we were not the right people for the job,
>and nobody else was willing to step up to the plate.
To which I would add: the polling problem is soluble at a price.
The higher the price paid, the more measures can be taken by
professionals to ensure that there is only one reply per person.
Of course, the higher the cost of participating in a poll
(time or money), the less people will be inclined to participate.
So reliable measures produce fewer replies.
This is my Usenet Uncertainty Conjecture (UUC, pronounced "YUCK").
It's unproven but not (I think) an unreasonable guess.
We developed a polling method that uses Usenet to make Usenet
decisions: keeping track of responses in threads. It is of
low reliability, but it is also low cost. All of the information
to test the identity of the poster is available for all to
inspect; anyone who wishes to check the record can do so
(as long as Google or other archives continue).
I did the straw poll for n.g.p. It was a great deal of work,
but it showed that a majority of respondents were in favor
of the group. In all likelihood, the board would have created
n.g.p anyway, but I was surprised and pleased that so many
people supported n.g.p--and that so many volunteered to
be moderators!
Polling has not just been considered--it's been done.
Which brings us back to another thorn in the side of SOME
of our critics: they want VOTING, not polling. I think
I've said my say about the difference between those two
models and I don't have much enthusiasm for going through
that whole argument again.
Marty
Tim Skirvin
> But I think there is a potential agenda which differs from the above,
> and also from the way the board currently runs. Something like:
This is, by the way, what I want to hear from those that really
believe in the positions. It's very, very difficult to try to talk with
anybody about potential compromises and/or concessions when the actual
goals are not clear.
Anyway - on with your points!
> * The board should operate less behind closed doors (published votes,
> public archives of the board list, etc).
Is this really desired anymore? It's been a while since I've seen
any complaints along these lines. For my part, I'd probably be willing to
re-open this discussion if I thought there was any chance that this was
an important sticking point; I'm happy with how things are right now, but
if a few changes would answer a lot of outstanding anger, then I'd like to
discuss it.
> * The board should stop seeing people who disagree with them as the
> enemy.
As Marty has said, this is not a Board-level issue. The Board, as
a whole, does not take actions against individuals, or respond to issues
beyond concrete proposals. I don't see this changing.
But at a personal level, a question: is there really anything
wrong with considering an individual who has repeatedly and publicly
attacked and slandered one's self, reputation, family, etc as an enemy?
Should any of us truly have to deal with that kind of hatred and anger
without even being allowed to respond with annoyance and disgust? We may
not be able to respond in kind, but can we not call it as we see it?
Truly, if this is the kind of thing that is necessary to "bring
peace" - if I must ignore the most egregious of insults, and to have the
patience of a saint in all cases - then I'm not going to bother, as I am
no saint, and I just plain can't do it. To ask for this is to ask for the
impossible - or for only the most thick-skinned to run Usenet.
> * Make it clear that the board's job is just maintaining a canonical
> newsgroup list. Move most of the Usenet Volunteer Moderators and
> other activities to be outside the authority of the board.
Would this really help anybody or anything? These entities,
for all that they exist, *are* separate from the Board. If somebody
wanted to, say, build their own polling software and take over the UVP, I
doubt I'd have any strong objections (as long as they'd *actually do it*,
anyway).
> In fact, stop or cut back on use of words like "authority", "board",
> and "management", which push people's buttons and arguably imply more
> power than the board really has (or wants).
Well, I don't think I buy this one either, but I guess I can see
the point. If anybody finds this worthy of compromise, I'd probably be
willing to give ground on simple vocabulary.