Re: Moderator Vacancy Investigation: comp.ai.jair.*
Peter J Ross
Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
> MODERATOR VACANCY INVESTIGATION (MVI)
> moderated group comp.ai.jair.announce
> moderated group comp.ai.jair.papers
I'm willing to moderate both groups temporarily (i.e. for years, if
necessary), but it would be better if somebody who knows more about AI
than I do volunteered.
I'm quite familiar with LaTeX and Postscript formats. I use them
regularly, mostly with LyX as a GUI.
I'm currently one of the moderators of news.admin.announce, and an
administrator and moderator of three slrn mailing lists.
The only objection to me that I can think of is that I despise the
sanitised news.groups.proposals treehouse and refuse to post there.
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Alexander Bartolich
> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
>> MODERATOR VACANCY INVESTIGATION (MVI)
>> moderated group comp.ai.jair.announce
>> moderated group comp.ai.jair.papers
>
> I'm willing to moderate both groups temporarily (i.e. for years, if
> necessary), but it would be better if somebody who knows more about AI
> than I do volunteered.
It's great when a volunteer steps forward. I don't want to discourage
you. But may I ask why you volunteered? Are you genuinely interested
in the topic or just want to do Usenet a service?
In the latter case there are 170 groups to chose from.
> I'm quite familiar with LaTeX and Postscript formats. I use them
> regularly, mostly with LyX as a GUI.
>
> I'm currently one of the moderators of news.admin.announce, and an
> administrator and moderator of three slrn mailing lists.
You bring your own tools, good.
However, as far as I understand it, comp.ai.jair.* acted as a kind of
unidirectional gateway between http://www.jair.org/ and Usenet. That
means we are not speaking about a moderation in the traditional sense.
Rather the moderator was the only user of the group and generated all
the content by himself.
> The only objection to me that I can think of is that I despise the
> sanitised news.groups.proposals treehouse and refuse to post there.
Great artists are not unsanitary, they are excentric. :-)
--
Peter J Ross
Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>
>>> MODERATOR VACANCY INVESTIGATION (MVI)
>>> moderated group comp.ai.jair.announce
>>> moderated group comp.ai.jair.papers
>>
>> I'm willing to moderate both groups temporarily (i.e. for years, if
>> necessary), but it would be better if somebody who knows more about AI
>> than I do volunteered.
>
> It's great when a volunteer steps forward. I don't want to discourage
> you. But may I ask why you volunteered? Are you genuinely interested
> in the topic or just want to do Usenet a service?
I have some interest in AI, but I'm no expert. Mostly, I just want to
do Usenet a service. Ideally, I'd like to be a backup for other
moderators so that they can go on holiday from time to time and be
sure that everything's ticking over in their absence.
IOW, I'm volunteering in the hope of being a junior member of a team.
But I'd also be willing to act as a "caretaker" for a while.
> In the latter case there are 170 groups to chose from.
Can you suggest any?
I'm not interested in moderating discussion groups. If people want
discussions to be moderated, they can use Web forums.
I could happily moderate rec.arts.drwho.info, but not
rec.arts.drwho.moderated. Does that make sense?
>> I'm quite familiar with LaTeX and Postscript formats. I use them
>> regularly, mostly with LyX as a GUI.
>>
>> I'm currently one of the moderators of news.admin.announce, and an
>> administrator and moderator of three slrn mailing lists.
>
> You bring your own tools, good.
>
> However, as far as I understand it, comp.ai.jair.* acted as a kind of
> unidirectional gateway between http://www.jair.org/ and Usenet. That
> means we are not speaking about a moderation in the traditional sense.
> Rather the moderator was the only user of the group and generated all
> the content by himself.
If the gateway is shut down, the group may need to be reinvented. If
it can't be usefully reinvented, it should probably be removed.
>> The only objection to me that I can think of is that I despise the
>> sanitised news.groups.proposals treehouse and refuse to post there.
>
> Great artists are not unsanitary, they are excentric. :-)
<eliza>
Is it important to you that great artists are not unsanitary, they are
eccentric?
</eliza>
:-)
Alexander Bartolich
> I have some interest in AI, but I'm no expert. Mostly, I just want to
> do Usenet a service. Ideally, I'd like to be a backup for other
> moderators so that they can go on holiday from time to time and be
> sure that everything's ticking over in their absence.
>
> IOW, I'm volunteering in the hope of being a junior member of a team.
OK.
>> [...]
>> In the latter case there are 170 groups to chose from.
>
> Can you suggest any?
Not really. Those 170 groups lack regular posts for the last 12
months and have no working moderation, i.e. submissions just get
lost. So the actual challenge is not to find a moderator but to
find users.
--
Steve Bonine
> So the actual challenge is not to find a moderator but to
> find users.
I think that what you're looking for is people with enough interest in
the given topic to promote the newsgroup. Putting a moderation platform
in place doesn't help if there's nothing to post and no one to read it.
In other words you're looking more for proponents than moderators.
I don't expect that there are many people willing to do that, but if you
manage to find motivated individuals for 10% of the groups, that's 17
revived newsgroups. I don't know what the percentage will be, but this
seems to be a project worth doing.
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> I think that what you're looking for is people with enough interest in
> the given topic to promote the newsgroup. Putting a moderation platform
> in place doesn't help if there's nothing to post and no one to read it.
> In other words you're looking more for proponents than moderators.
My ambitions are much lower.
If the moderation of a group does not work then all regular posts sub-
mitted to the group just vanish into a black hole. Of course experienced
users know how to navigate around these traps. New users probably not.
Leaving known spots of grave frustration in the canonical group list is
a disgrace.
> I don't expect that there are many people willing to do that, but if you
> manage to find motivated individuals for 10% of the groups, that's 17
> revived newsgroups. I don't know what the percentage will be, but this
> seems to be a project worth doing.
Yes, the perfect fix would be to revive the group.
I don't have much hope for this to happen, though.
The obvious fix is to simply remove the group. However, this is not
the aim but rather the last resort. An active moderator presiding over
an empty group is ok by me. Volunteers for this position must be told
in advance what they will encounter, though.
--
Aatu Koskensilta
> The obvious fix is to simply remove the group. However, this is not
> the aim but rather the last resort. An active moderator presiding over
> an empty group is ok by me.
Why? What use is an active moderator presiding over an empty group? Is
it in the hope that should, one year, someone submit a post it would be
processed?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Alexander Bartolich
> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> writes:
>
>> The obvious fix is to simply remove the group. However, this is not
>> the aim but rather the last resort. An active moderator presiding over
>> an empty group is ok by me.
>
> Why? What use is an active moderator presiding over an empty group? Is
> it in the hope that should, one year, someone submit a post it would be
> processed?
My top priority is to fix the black holes in the group list. This is
estimated to take one and half years if (and only if) I don't start to
argue with established moderators and volunteers about less important
things.
--
Aatu Koskensilta
Well, bully for you. I'm at a loss as to how this answers my question,
unless I'm to understand I'm one of these "established moderators and
volunteers" you feel it's not worth the effort to argue with. Your
priorities are your business, of course, but if you don't want to
discuss these matters in news it's obscure what's the point of your
posts.
Alexander Bartolich
>> My top priority is to fix the black holes in the group list. This is
>> estimated to take one and half years if (and only if) I don't start to
>> argue with established moderators and volunteers about less important
>> things.
>
> Well, bully for you. I'm at a loss as to how this answers my question,
> unless I'm to understand I'm one of these "established moderators and
> volunteers" you feel it's not worth the effort to argue with.
Do you preside over an empty group that you want to keep?
Do you want to volunteer for moderation of an empty group?
If that's the case then I will not argue against your desires.
> Your priorities are your business, of course, but if you don't want
> to discuss these matters in news it's obscure what's the point of
> your posts.
In accordance with the prophecy:
# One of the goals that the big-8 administration process has always
# fulfilled is to give people something to complain about. I'm sure that
# no matter what happens this goal will continue to be met.
-- Steve Bonine in <7kb78rF...@mid.individual.net>
--
Aatu Koskensilta
> Do you preside over an empty group that you want to keep? Do you want
> to volunteer for moderation of an empty group? If that's the case
> then I will not argue against your desires.
So the point of your comments was that you have no desire to argue with
moderators (and volunteers) who preside over empty groups over whether
their group should be removed or assigned to someone else? If so, this
is an eminently sensible stance.
> In accordance with the prophecy:
>
> # One of the goals that the big-8 administration process has always
> # fulfilled is to give people something to complain about. I'm sure that
> # no matter what happens this goal will continue to be met.
> -- Steve Bonine in <7kb78rF...@mid.individual.net>
Interminable balling in news will never cease, to be sure.
Mark Kramer
Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>Yes, the perfect fix would be to revive the group.
>I don't have much hope for this to happen, though.
"Pefect" again.
>The obvious fix is to simply remove the group.
That leaves those areas of frustration, though, that you find offensive.
Everyplace the group exists, people will post and get no answer.
The obvious fix is to create an autoapprover and point the submission
address to that. In that way, people who post get their articles
distributed. You do say:
>Of course experienced
>users know how to navigate around these traps.
If self-approval is how one navigates around these traps (the only
way that experience users have) why not approve the process and make
it automatic?
Adam H. Kerman
The point is, Steve, that he's not looking, nor does he intend to.
Adam H. Kerman
>Steve Bonine wrote:
>>I think that what you're looking for is people with enough interest in
>>the given topic to promote the newsgroup. Putting a moderation platform
>>in place doesn't help if there's nothing to post and no one to read it.
>>In other words you're looking more for proponents than moderators.
>My ambitions are much lower.
That's honest, at least.
>If the moderation of a group does not work then all regular posts sub-
>mitted to the group just vanish into a black hole. Of course experienced
>users know how to navigate around these traps. New users probably not.
>Leaving known spots of grave frustration in the canonical group list is
>a disgrace.
You've surveyed such users and have learned that this is a source of grave
frustration, have you? Never even seen it come up once in the local support
newsgroups on your server, and you've had buckets full of new users what
with another round of ISPs eliminating News.
>>I don't expect that there are many people willing to do that, but if you
>>manage to find motivated individuals for 10% of the groups, that's 17
>>revived newsgroups. I don't know what the percentage will be, but this
>>seems to be a project worth doing.
>Yes, the perfect fix would be to revive the group.
>I don't have much hope for this to happen, though.
>The obvious fix is to simply remove the group. However, this is not
>the aim but rather the last resort. An active moderator presiding over
>an empty group is ok by me. Volunteers for this position must be told
>in advance what they will encounter, though.
That's total dishonesty, for you cannot look with your eyes closed. You
didn't look for any discussion of any of these topics anywhere on Usenet,
which is the only way to find the audience. RFDs and MVIs are in lieu looking
as it's no effort at all.
Adam H. Kerman
Earplugs are at the ready!
Adam H. Kerman
>Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>>Your priorities are your business, of course, but if you don't want
>>to discuss these matters in news it's obscure what's the point of
>>your posts.
>In accordance with the prophecy:
># One of the goals that the big-8 administration process has always
># fulfilled is to give people something to complain about. I'm sure that
># no matter what happens this goal will continue to be met.
>-- Steve Bonine in <7kb78rF...@mid.individual.net>
Slurping is Steve's job, not yours. Get it right.
Aatu Koskensilta
> Slurping is Steve's job, not yours. Get it right.
Slurpity-slurp. Get over it.
Alexander Bartolich
> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> writes:
>
>> Do you preside over an empty group that you want to keep? Do you want
>> to volunteer for moderation of an empty group? If that's the case
>> then I will not argue against your desires.
>
> So the point of your comments was that you have no desire to argue with
> moderators (and volunteers) who preside over empty groups over whether
> their group should be removed or assigned to someone else? If so, this
> is an eminently sensible stance.
Exactly. Sorry for the confusion.
>> In accordance with the prophecy:
>>
>> # One of the goals that the big-8 administration process has always
>> # fulfilled is to give people something to complain about. I'm sure that
>> # no matter what happens this goal will continue to be met.
>> -- Steve Bonine in <7kb78rF...@mid.individual.net>
>
> Interminable balling in news will never cease, to be sure.
One is glad to be of service.
--
Kathy Morgan
> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >[broken moderated groups]
> >The obvious fix is to simply remove the group. However, this is not
> >the aim but rather the last resort. An active moderator presiding over
> >an empty group is ok by me. Volunteers for this position must be told
> >in advance what they will encounter, though.
>
> That's total dishonesty, for you cannot look with your eyes closed. You
> didn't look for any discussion of any of these topics anywhere on Usenet,
> which is the only way to find the audience. RFDs and MVIs are in lieu looking
> as it's no effort at all.
You seem to be conflating two entirely separate issues. The issue
Alexander is addressing is broken moderated groups where submissions do
not reach an active moderator. Those groups are useless and should
either be restored to functionality or removed.
In some cases, there may be other newsgroups where the topic is
discussed and that may have potential volunteers to take over the
moderation tasks. If you want that to happen and have the time to
locate those groups and post pointers to the RFD's in them, more power
to you. If someone as a result jumps up and volunteers to take over
moderation and promote the group, that's fine.
However, it's quite possible that people are perfectly happy continuing
their discussions without the moderated group and don't care to have
restored to functionality a redundant group that would tend to split the
remaining discussion, and that's fine too. Finally, in some cases there
probably is no Usenet discussion of the topic and no reason to retain
the group.
Bottom line: if you want someone to locate the discussion and promote
the groups, you need to be the one to do it. On Usenet, if you want
something done you need to be willing to do it yourself. Volunteering
someone else to do things for you just doesn't work.
--
Kathy
Kathy Morgan
> In article <hcneb9$agi$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> >The obvious fix is to simply remove the group.
>
> That leaves those areas of frustration, though, that you find offensive.
> Everyplace the group exists, people will post and get no answer.
No, the whole point is that they can't post. They will attempt to post
and the post will never appear in the group.
--
Kathy
Mark Kramer
Kathy Morgan <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>No, the whole point is that they can't post. They will attempt to post
>and the post will never appear in the group.
No, the whole point is they can POST but the article will never be
approved and distributed. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot who I was talking
to. Most people call the act of posting "posting". And I bet even you
do that when you aren't trying to play one-uppance.
So, that leaves the same problems, where people post their message and
it never shows up and there is no problem reported. That makes the
auto-approver a better solution, since you can implement that without
needing every news admin on the planet to listen to you and remove a
group.
Mark Kramer
Kathy Morgan <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>You seem to be conflating two entirely separate issues. The issue
>Alexander is addressing is broken moderated groups where submissions do
>not reach an active moderator.
And in your omniscient state as Bambi, I'm sure you can tell the
difference between "not reach an active moderator" and "ignored by
active moderator" just by thinking.
>In some cases, there may be other newsgroups where the topic is
>discussed and that may have potential volunteers to take over the
>moderation tasks. If you want that to happen and have the time to
>locate those groups and post pointers to the RFD's in them, more power
>to you.
It's not his job to manage the Big 8. It's not his responsibility to
do your job for you.
>Bottom line: if you want someone to locate the discussion and promote
>the groups, you need to be the one to do it.
Because God knows that the management of the Big 8 ain't going to bother.
>On Usenet, if you want
>something done you need to be willing to do it yourself.
You're giving us all permission to manage the Big 8 hierarchy ourselves?
>Volunteering someone else to do things for you just doesn't work.
And yet you just tried volunteering Adam to do your work.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>[broken moderated groups]
>>>The obvious fix is to simply remove the group. However, this is not
>>>the aim but rather the last resort. An active moderator presiding over
>>>an empty group is ok by me. Volunteers for this position must be told
>>>in advance what they will encounter, though.
>>That's total dishonesty, for you cannot look with your eyes closed. You
>>didn't look for any discussion of any of these topics anywhere on Usenet,
>>which is the only way to find the audience. RFDs and MVIs are in lieu looking
>>as it's no effort at all.
>You seem to be conflating two entirely separate issues.
As usual, you haven't addressed anything I wrote, beyond making excuses
for your own incompetance, as I predicted.
Alexander Bartolich
> Kathy Morgan <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> [...]
>>In some cases, there may be other newsgroups where the topic is
>>discussed and that may have potential volunteers to take over the
>>moderation tasks. If you want that to happen and have the time to
>>locate those groups and post pointers to the RFD's in them, more power
>>to you.
>
> It's not his job to manage the Big 8. It's not his responsibility to
> do your job for you.
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Adam's talent and ambition is to raise shitstorms. So he is actually
the perfect candidate for the job.
Please, Adam, go find the users, tell them that the Atheist Jihad of
Aryan Communists has aquired weapons of mass removal, and is homing in
on their beloved group. The time fuse is set to eight weeks (MVI, 1st
RFD, 2nd RFD, and LCC taking two weeks each).
Ciao
Alexander,
polishing his monocle.
Mark Kramer
Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
If you are unable to "manage the Big 8", you shouldn't be on the Big
8 Management Board.
>Adam's talent and ambition is to raise shitstorms. So he is actually
>the perfect candidate for the job.
You believe that managing the Big 8 requires "rais[ing] shitstorms"?
You are a perfect match, but still unqualified for the real task.
Peter J Ross
Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
If submissions get lost, how do you know there are no potential users?
Anyway, I'll consider your other MVI posts and let you know if I think
I can help.
Peter J Ross
<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Alexander Bartolich wrote:
>
>> So the actual challenge is not to find a moderator but to
>> find users.
>
> I think that what you're looking for is people with enough interest in
> the given topic to promote the newsgroup. Putting a moderation platform
> in place doesn't help if there's nothing to post and no one to read it.
> In other words you're looking more for proponents than moderators.
I'm willing to act as a caretaker moderator for groups whose previous
moderators are AWOL.
Obviously, I'd promote any group of which I was a moderator, but other
than advertising the group in my .sig and emailing potential users who
post on-tpoc in other groups (which is what I've done with
news.admin.announce), I don't see what promotion can be done.
> I don't expect that there are many people willing to do that, but if you
> manage to find motivated individuals for 10% of the groups, that's 17
> revived newsgroups. I don't know what the percentage will be, but this
> seems to be a project worth doing.
It would be nice if every statement that "X is worth doing" were
converted into "I will do X."
Saving the two JAIR groups is, IMO, worth doing, and I will try to do
it if I'm invited to do so. I'd like to see you making similar
promises.
Peter J Ross
Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Leaving known spots of grave frustration in the canonical group list is
> a disgrace.
Yes. That sentence is so true it's .sig-worthy.
Are you aware of the situation in news.admin.net-abuse.sightings? It
was a high-volume group until its moderator decided to pull the plug.
Last I heard, the group hadn't been rmgrouped because there was still
some hope of finding a "suitable" moderator, but a lot of potentially
"suitable" moderators probably don't want to submit to the kind of
flames I encountered when I volunteered for news.admin.announce and
that G Burnore encountered when he volunteered for NAN-AS.
<...>
> The obvious fix is to simply remove the group. However, this is not
> the aim but rather the last resort.
IMO, removal should be preceded by an rmgroup RFD, not a mere MVI.
> An active moderator presiding over
> an empty group is ok by me.
And by me too. Four of us preside over news.admin.announce, and it's
been empty since we took over in June, but I don't see anything wrong
with that situation.
If there were ten approved posts a day in such a group, something
*would* be wrong.
> Volunteers for this position must be told
> in advance what they will encounter, though.
They/we will encounter apathy, of course. So what?
--
PJR :-)
news.admin.announce (a low-volume, moderated Usenet group)
Read and post announcements of interest to news administrators.
See <http://www.robomod.net/news.admin.announce/info.html>.
Steve Bonine
> In Steve Bonine wrote:
>> I don't expect that there are many people willing to do that, but if you
>> manage to find motivated individuals for 10% of the groups, that's 17
>> revived newsgroups. I don't know what the percentage will be, but this
>> seems to be a project worth doing.
>
> It would be nice if every statement that "X is worth doing" were
> converted into "I will do X."
>
> Saving the two JAIR groups is, IMO, worth doing, and I will try to do
> it if I'm invited to do so. I'd like to see you making similar
> promises.
I will.
It makes no sense for me to jump in and try to do anything for groups
that are being discussed so far. I have no expertise that would help,
nor interest in the topics.
I admit that I have a bias against proposed newsgroups that cover topics
that are adequately covered in other forums. Unless there is already an
established population of people already on Usenet who are discussing a
topic, it's unlikely that a moderated discussion newsgroup for that
topic will succeed or that an announce group will serve a useful
purpose. I expect that this will sound like I'm rationalizing a lack of
action, but that's not my intent.
Mark Kramer
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>It makes no sense for me to jump in and try to do anything for groups
>that are being discussed so far. I have no expertise that would help,
>nor interest in the topics.
Yes, you have no expertise in moderation of newsgroups.
>I admit that I have a bias against proposed newsgroups that cover topics
>that are adequately covered in other forums.
MVI's don't propose newsgroups, they seek moderators to take over
existing groups.
Steve Bonine
> Steve Bonine wrote:
>> I admit that I have a bias against proposed newsgroups that cover topics
>> that are adequately covered in other forums.
>
> MVI's don't propose newsgroups, they seek moderators to take over
> existing groups.
There's not really a difference between reviving a long-dead group via
an MVI and proposing a new group.
For the MVIs we're seeing, moderation has been broken for a very long
time. There is no "existing group". An entry in the newsgroup list
does not constitute an "existing group".
Even if the newsgroup was once healthy, the people who were using it
have found a different way of discussing the topic or receiving
announcements. There's no reason to believe that they will flock back
to the newsgroup if it is revived.
That doesn't mean that it's impossible to revive them, any more than
it's impossible to start a new group. But it's exactly the same process.
Doug Freyburger
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> In Steve Bonine wrote:
>
>>> I don't expect that there are many people willing to do that, but if you
>>> manage to find motivated individuals for 10% of the groups, that's 17
>>> revived newsgroups. I don't know what the percentage will be, but this
>>> seems to be a project worth doing.
>
>> It would be nice if every statement that "X is worth doing" were
>> converted into "I will do X."
>
>> Saving the two JAIR groups is, IMO, worth doing, and I will try to do
>> it if I'm invited to do so.
The MVI constitutes an invitation for volunteers.
>> I'd like to see you making similar promises.
>
> I will.
I did during the previous pass at reviving moderated newsgroups. I took
over soc.religion.shamanism and got blasted by the regulars on
alt.religion.shamanism for having put in the effort. Eventually the
moderation was turned off for lack of traffic and a signed rmgroup
control message sent.
> I admit that I have a bias against proposed newsgroups that cover topics
> that are adequately covered in other forums. Unless there is already an
> established population of people already on Usenet who are discussing a
> topic, it's unlikely that a moderated discussion newsgroup for that
> topic will succeed or that an announce group will serve a useful
> purpose.
There exist subjects that have mod/unmod pairs. With only one exception
the moderated group sees far less traffic. They generally get used like
a bomb shelter during attacks by nym-shifting trolls. My experience
with SRA is that when there's an unmod group available there's no point
in reviving the moderated version unless there is clear cut and
unambiguous agreement by the regular of the unmod version that it is
wanted. One of the current regulars needs to step forward IMO.
Like Steve I've been scanning the names pondering if any of them is one
I am willing to step forward to take on. But I'll include the lesson I
learned with SRA in my decision if there's an existing unmod group on
the same topic.
Mark Kramer
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Mark Kramer wrote:
>> Steve Bonine wrote:
>
>>> I admit that I have a bias against proposed newsgroups that cover topics
>>> that are adequately covered in other forums.
>>
>> MVI's don't propose newsgroups, they seek moderators to take over
>> existing groups.
>
>There's not really a difference between reviving a long-dead group via
>an MVI and proposing a new group.
Other than the fact that group group already exists and has passed the
hurdles required by the PTB to exist, no there is no difference.
>An entry in the newsgroup list
>does not constitute an "existing group".
And yet that is exactly what the current board calls "creating a group".
Making an entry in the newsgroup list.
>Even if the newsgroup was once healthy, the people who were using it
>have found a different way of discussing the topic or receiving
>announcements.
Maybe. Maybe not. I have many groups in my .newsrc that don't show
postings on a regular basis. I haven't rushed out to replace the ones
that are low volume with something else. Anything that appears will show
up in my reader.
Steve Bonine
> In article<7lhio6F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Steve Bonine<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Mark Kramer wrote:
>>> Steve Bonine wrote:
>>
>>>> I admit that I have a bias against proposed newsgroups that cover topics
>>>> that are adequately covered in other forums.
>>>
>>> MVI's don't propose newsgroups, they seek moderators to take over
>>> existing groups.
>>
>> There's not really a difference between reviving a long-dead group via
>> an MVI and proposing a new group.
>
> Other than the fact that group group already exists and has passed the
> hurdles required by the PTB to exist, no there is no difference.
The existence of an MVI indicates that the original moderator has
disappeared. Thus a vote by the board is needed to revive the group. A
vote to create . . . a vote to change the moderator . . . "not really a
difference".
>> An entry in the newsgroup list
>> does not constitute an "existing group".
>
> And yet that is exactly what the current board calls "creating a group".
> Making an entry in the newsgroup list.
In spite of your effort to disagree, you're saying the same thing that I
am. The canonical newsgroup list is a list of groups that were once
created, not a list of groups that live today. Alexander is attacking
the moderated black holes, which are easier to resolve than the
unmoderated black holes.
>> Even if the newsgroup was once healthy, the people who were using it
>> have found a different way of discussing the topic or receiving
>> announcements.
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. I have many groups in my .newsrc that don't show
> postings on a regular basis. I haven't rushed out to replace the ones
> that are low volume with something else. Anything that appears will show
> up in my reader.
We all know how typical you are of the average Usenet user.
Anyone who cared about a topic for which the newsgroup died would find
another source of information on that topic. They might leave the dead
group in their list of subscribed groups and they might notice if an
article appeared there. (Or they might not, if they have left Usenet
completely.) But noticing "anything that appears" is a far cry from
returning to the newsgroup. If the ex-user has found another reliable
source of information on the topic, why should they return to the Usenet
newsgroup? Because newsgroups are always better? Not likely.
Doug Freyburger
>
> The existence of an MVI indicates that the original moderator has
> disappeared. Thus a vote by the board is needed to revive the group. A
> vote to create . . . a vote to change the moderator . . . "not really a
> difference".
I disagree. MVIs are conducted on groups that already passed the
process that existed at the time it was created. To me it takes the
process that exists now to delete the group from the canonical list. To
me to replace the moderator is an administrative function that just
requires giving plenty of notice to see if the moderator is idle for
lack of traffic.
Steve Bonine
In the case of a new newsgroup, a proponent must convince the board that
the newsgroup has a reasonable chance of success. In the case of
someone stepping in to moderate a newsgroup named in an MVI, I would
hope that exactly the same thing is true -- the proposed moderator needs
to provide the board with an indication that there's still a reason for
the newsgroup to exist.
My hope may be just a hope. Based on comments I've read, I conclude
that the goal of Alexander's project is to remove "black holes" from the
canonical list, and that if a newsgroup has a working moderation
platform he's fine with it. I would prefer a higher standard, but it's
hard to justify one since there are so many dead unmoderated newsgroups
in the list.
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> I'm willing to act as a caretaker moderator for groups whose previous
> moderators are AWOL.
> Saving the two JAIR groups is, IMO, worth doing, and I will try to do
> it if I'm invited to do so. I'd like to see you making similar
> promises.
Well, thanks for your offer. I don't get many. :-)
However, I see severe shortcomings.
My two cents of advice:
Appointing new moderators without approval of the old ones requires
a vote of the board.
Temporary care-taking makes sense only if a permanent solution is
underway. Things happen, and plans fail. But deliberately taking the
road to nowhere (aka caretaker moderator without plan) is not an
option. See it like this: Nobody likes to vote again and again on the
same issue.
A clear and unambiguous statement of the volunteer is absolutely
required.
Reviving a dead moderated group is like proposing a new one.
So you should answer the same questions.
- Where are the users?
- Where is the traffic?
- What is your expertise with the topic?
- How does your team want to operate 24/7/365? (No, robomoderation is
not the answer. The board could do that if there were a point.)
Also it might be a good idea to post a formal RFD. (You get a free
pass only for obvious (TM) groups, not for obviously dead ones.)
Yes, I know that the last point is against your faith.
Ciao
Alexander.
Doug Freyburger
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> I disagree. MVIs are conducted on groups that already passed the
>> process that existed at the time it was created. To me it takes the
>> process that exists now to delete the group from the canonical list. To
>> me to replace the moderator is an administrative function that just
>> requires giving plenty of notice to see if the moderator is idle for
>> lack of traffic.
>
> In the case of a new newsgroup, a proponent must convince the board that
> the newsgroup has a reasonable chance of success. In the case of
> someone stepping in to moderate a newsgroup named in an MVI, I would
> hope that exactly the same thing is true -- the proposed moderator needs
> to provide the board with an indication that there's still a reason for
> the newsgroup to exist.
Let's see if I can summarize our disagreement in a way that works for
you:
I think no justification is needed if a new volunteer moderator steps
forward. The group is pre-approved so all that is needed to me is a
long enough timeout to confirm the previous moderators are gone and a
new moderator who has moderation software and a host to run it on
(includes use of software and host supplied by someone else). I think
this in spite of my experience with soc.religion.shamanism that was
revived and then a couple of years later deleted for lack of traffic.
You think justification is needed because traffic is too unlikely to
resume if a new moderator steps forward. You may even include my
experience of soc.religion.shamanism as supporting data.
> My hope may be just a hope. Based on comments I've read, I conclude
> that the goal of Alexander's project is to remove "black holes" from the
> canonical list, and that if a newsgroup has a working moderation
> platform he's fine with it.
If the goal is only removing black holes then getting volunteers should
be sufficient for him.
> I would prefer a higher standard, but it's
> hard to justify one since there are so many dead unmoderated newsgroups
> in the list.
If the goal is trimming unused groups then getting volunteers is not
sufficient. I do not oppose removing unused unmoderated newsgroups from
the canonical list but I am aware that since many NSPs do not
automatically follow signed control messages the result is splintering
UseNet more than it already is.
Alexander Bartolich
> Steve Bonine wrote:
> I think no justification is needed if a new volunteer moderator steps
> forward. The group is pre-approved so all that is needed to me is a
> long enough timeout to confirm the previous moderators are gone and a
> new moderator who has moderation software and a host to run it on
> (includes use of software and host supplied by someone else). I think
> this in spite of my experience with soc.religion.shamanism that was
> revived and then a couple of years later deleted for lack of traffic.
When a moderator passes over control to a new team, then the decision
is made by the old moderator. not the board.
When control is handed over to a new team without approval of the old
one, then the decision is made by the board, not the old moderator.
The board makes decisions by voting.
>> My hope may be just a hope. Based on comments I've read, I conclude
>> that the goal of Alexander's project is to remove "black holes" from the
>> canonical list, and that if a newsgroup has a working moderation
>> platform he's fine with it.
>
> If the goal is only removing black holes then getting volunteers should
> be sufficient for him.
The goal is to reach a sustainable solution. If a dead group does not
get revived that it will end up as black hole again, sooner or later.
> [...] I am aware that since many NSPs do not
> automatically follow signed control messages the result is splintering
> UseNet more than it already is.
By that logic we should close shop and hand over to alt.config.
Ciao
Alexander.
Adam H. Kerman
>Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>[...] I am aware that since many NSPs do not automatically follow
>>signed control messages the result is splintering UseNet more than it
>>already is.
>By that logic we should close shop and hand over to alt.config.
Generally, Bambi control messages are not acted upon automatically at the
vast majority of servers. There are known cases in which newgroup messages
are acted upon automatically, while checkgroups messages and rmgroup
messages are ignored.
Generally, Bambi hides its head in the sand with regard to this issue,
because it's so much easier to proceed with processes to neaten up the
list of the set of newsgroups Bambi recognizes than to gain widespread
acceptance of Bambi control messages.
Any moron can send a rmgroup message. It takes a committee constantly
reassuring itself that the sending of rmgroup messages gives its members
real power and isn't just meaningless busiwork to maintain the shared
delusion of its members.
There is a solution, of course, but it requires actual work and follow
through: Change the Bambi top priority from sending control messages for
the sake of sending control messages to gaining greater acceptance of its
checkgroups messages.
Continue to believe other than rmgroup messages are mostly ignored and
you will continue to be laughed at.
David Bostwick
>Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>>>[...] I am aware that since many NSPs do not automatically follow
>>>signed control messages the result is splintering UseNet more than it
>>>already is.
>
>>By that logic we should close shop and hand over to alt.config.
>
>Generally, Bambi control messages are not acted upon automatically at the
>vast majority of servers. There are known cases in which newgroup messages
>are acted upon automatically, while checkgroups messages and rmgroup
>messages are ignored.
>
And how has this changed over the last few years, from tale to Russ to the
board? If it's changed a lot, is the change due to the way the hand-off was
done, or just a loss of interest in Usenet by admins? Without those answers,
the board can't be blamed for it.
>Generally, Bambi hides its head in the sand with regard to this issue,
>because it's so much easier to proceed with processes to neaten up the
>list of the set of newsgroups Bambi recognizes than to gain widespread
>acceptance of Bambi control messages.
>
>Any moron can send a rmgroup message. It takes a committee constantly
>reassuring itself that the sending of rmgroup messages gives its members
>real power and isn't just meaningless busiwork to maintain the shared
>delusion of its members.
>
>There is a solution, of course, but it requires actual work and follow
>through: Change the Bambi top priority from sending control messages for
>the sake of sending control messages to gaining greater acceptance of its
>checkgroups messages.
>
Any ideas, or have you presented some and been rebuffed?
Steve Bonine
> Let's see if I can summarize our disagreement in a way that works for
> you:
>
> I think no justification is needed if a new volunteer moderator steps
> forward. The group is pre-approved so all that is needed to me is a
> long enough timeout to confirm the previous moderators are gone and a
> new moderator who has moderation software and a host to run it on
> (includes use of software and host supplied by someone else). I think
> this in spite of my experience with soc.religion.shamanism that was
> revived and then a couple of years later deleted for lack of traffic.
>
> You think justification is needed because traffic is too unlikely to
> resume if a new moderator steps forward. You may even include my
> experience of soc.religion.shamanism as supporting data.
Yes, I think that's an accurate summary. The new moderator who steps
forward needs to be a proponent in addition (or someone else needs to
fill that role). Just fixing the moderation platform so that it's
possible to post to the newsgroup does not mean that anyone will post.
If someone publicizes the newsgroup, then there's a better chance that
it will revive. Not a great chance perhaps, but better than if it just
quietly comes back to life.
Thus I would expect the new moderator to have an interest in the topic.
It seems unlikely that someone who was simply interested in performing
the mechanics of moderation would have the interest and the personal
contacts to promote the "new" group.
> If the goal is trimming unused groups then getting volunteers is not
> sufficient. I do not oppose removing unused unmoderated newsgroups from
> the canonical list but I am aware that since many NSPs do not
> automatically follow signed control messages the result is splintering
> UseNet more than it already is.
It's only "splintering" in the sense that some users will see broken
groups and others will not. Sending the control message will remove the
group from some servers. This is an improvement. At any rate, it's the
best that can be done; the other alternative is to do nothing.
Ray Banana
> Generally, Bambi control messages are not acted upon automatically at the
> vast majority of servers. There are known cases in which newgroup messages
> are acted upon automatically, while checkgroups messages and rmgroup
> messages are ignored.
Interesting. Can you provide some statistical data to
substantiate this statement? I only have ~60 peers
and can't confirm this observation from my own experience.
TIA
--
Too many ingredients in the soup, no room for a spoon
http://www.eternal-september.org
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>>>[...] I am aware that since many NSPs do not automatically follow
>>>>signed control messages the result is splintering UseNet more than it
>>>>already is.
>>>By that logic we should close shop and hand over to alt.config.
>>Generally, Bambi control messages are not acted upon automatically at the
>>vast majority of servers. There are known cases in which newgroup messages
>>are acted upon automatically, while checkgroups messages and rmgroup
>>messages are ignored.
>And how has this changed over the last few years, from tale to Russ to the
>board? If it's changed a lot, is the change due to the way the hand-off was
>done, or just a loss of interest in Usenet by admins? Without those answers,
>the board can't be blamed for it.
I always have to repeat myself for David. I'm not blaming the Board for the
facts of the current situation, but for not giving enough of a shit about it
to change the situation. It wasn't a good situation under Russ and Todd,
either, but it was better than today. As I recently mentioned to A.B., one
of Russ's first reforms was to recognize the INET groups which allowed
checkgroups to be issued for the first time. tale wouldn't make a decision
on recognition of the INET groups and therefore did not issue checkgroups.
The sending of newgroup and rmgroup messages is a priority, that doesn't
have a lot of influence on the set of Big 8 newsgroups that are generally
offered to Usenet users, especially rmgroup messages. Gaining greater
acceptance of checkgroups messages is not a priority.
Bambi treats the issuance of control message as noteworthy, as an event,
as an accomplishment. It is nothing of the kind. Until that attitude changes,
they will do nothing about gaining more widespread acceptance of checkgroups.
>>Generally, Bambi hides its head in the sand with regard to this issue,
>>because it's so much easier to proceed with processes to neaten up the
>>list of the set of newsgroups Bambi recognizes than to gain widespread
>>acceptance of Bambi control messages.
>>Any moron can send a rmgroup message. It takes a committee constantly
>>reassuring itself that the sending of rmgroup messages gives its members
>>real power and isn't just meaningless busiwork to maintain the shared
>>delusion of its members.
>>There is a solution, of course, but it requires actual work and follow
>>through: Change the Bambi top priority from sending control messages for
>>the sake of sending control messages to gaining greater acceptance of its
>>checkgroups messages.
>Any ideas, or have you presented some and been rebuffed?
The same successful promotional campaign to get a new group well used or to
revive a moribund group would work to promote checkgroups, with slight
modification. Instead of only asking Usenet users to request creation of the
group or to fix the moderation flag, users would also ask their News
administrators to run checkgroups and to consider processing it automatically
or manually on an ad hoc basis. This is something a proponent would do.
Of course, the Board should be in communication with News administrators
to promote checkgroups.
There's no special method beyond identifying the audience and communicating
the message. It requires persistence and follow through.
Adam H. Kerman
>Thus spake "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
>>Generally, Bambi control messages are not acted upon automatically at the
>>vast majority of servers. There are known cases in which newgroup messages
>>are acted upon automatically, while checkgroups messages and rmgroup
>>messages are ignored.
>Interesting. Can you provide some statistical data to
>substantiate this statement? I only have ~60 peers
>and can't confirm this observation from my own experience.
>TIA
Why does this sound like a straight line in which D.Stussy is the punchline?
You mean by using the propagation search engine whose results you've slammed
any number of times in the past? From anecdotal evidence of my own discussions
with News administrators willing to create a group on request but unwilling
to create new Big 8 groups they don't expect their users would read?
Or do you mean an extrapolation of the universe of News servers that take
Big 8 groups from a representative sample, which of course no one has?
Of course if your 60 peers are known to have publicly searchable active files,
why are you keeping their contact information a secret from the maintainer
of the propagation search tool who would only be too glad to include them?
David Bostwick
>Thus spake "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
>
>> Generally, Bambi control messages are not acted upon automatically at the
>> vast majority of servers. There are known cases in which newgroup messages
>> are acted upon automatically, while checkgroups messages and rmgroup
>> messages are ignored.
>
>Interesting. Can you provide some statistical data to
>substantiate this statement? I only have ~60 peers
>and can't confirm this observation from my own experience.
>
>TIA
>
Some real data. Thanks.
David Bostwick
>David Bostwick <david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>>Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>>>>>[...] I am aware that since many NSPs do not automatically follow
>>>>>signed control messages the result is splintering UseNet more than it
>>>>>already is.
>
>>>>By that logic we should close shop and hand over to alt.config.
>
>>>Generally, Bambi control messages are not acted upon automatically at the
>>>vast majority of servers. There are known cases in which newgroup messages
>>>are acted upon automatically, while checkgroups messages and rmgroup
>>>messages are ignored.
>
>>And how has this changed over the last few years, from tale to Russ to the
>>board? If it's changed a lot, is the change due to the way the hand-off was
>>done, or just a loss of interest in Usenet by admins? Without those answers,
>>the board can't be blamed for it.
>
>I always have to repeat myself for David. I'm not blaming the Board for the
>facts of the current situation, but for not giving enough of a shit about it
>to change the situation.
Adam, just answer the question. I asked you for data to indicate that there's
been a big change in automatic acceptance of **group messages. The comment's
been made a few times, but I have yet to see real numbers. You don't need to
attack when no offense is given. It may be more fun, but it's
counterproductive if you want improvement.
Ray Banana
>>substantiate this statement? I only have ~60 peers
>>and can't confirm this observation from my own experience.
Because you have a very special relationship with D. Stussy.
> You mean by using the propagation search engine whose results you've slammed
> any number of times in the past?
Obviously I was hoping for something more reliable than that :-P
> From anecdotal evidence of my own discussions
> with News administrators willing to create a group on request but unwilling
> to create new Big 8 groups they don't expect their users would read?
Anecdotal evidence does not justify a statement like "Big8 control
messages are generally ignored".
> Or do you mean an extrapolation of the universe of News servers that take
> Big 8 groups from a representative sample, which of course no one has?
> Of course if your 60 peers are known to have publicly searchable active files,
> why are you keeping their contact information a secret from the maintainer
> of the propagation search tool who would only be too glad to include them?
The active file of a news server does not give an indication whether
control messages are processed automatically or groups are created
and deleted manually. In order to circumstatiate your claim you will
have to put a lot more effort into gathering reliable information about
how the top 500 newsservers handle Big 8 control messages.
Simply reading some active files is just not sufficient.
Mark Kramer
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Mark Kramer wrote:
>> Other than the fact that group group already exists and has passed the
>> hurdles required by the PTB to exist, no there is no difference.
>
>The existence of an MVI indicates that the original moderator has
>disappeared. Thus a vote by the board is needed to revive the group.
No, it isn't. The moderator may appoint his replacement at his whim. A
vote of the board is not required. An MVI mean "we're looking", not
"he's dead, Jim".
>>> An entry in the newsgroup list
>>> does not constitute an "existing group".
>>
>> And yet that is exactly what the current board calls "creating a group".
>> Making an entry in the newsgroup list.
>
>In spite of your effort to disagree, you're saying the same thing that I
>am.
Other than I accept that the group already exists and you don't. Other
than you're saying that an entry in the newsgroup list doesn't mean the
group exists and the board saying that adding that entry is how groups
are created. Yes, other than the differences, we're saying the same thing.
>> Maybe. Maybe not. I have many groups in my .newsrc that don't show
>> postings on a regular basis. I haven't rushed out to replace the ones
>> that are low volume with something else. Anything that appears will show
>> up in my reader.
>
>We all know how typical you are of the average Usenet user.
I don't think I'm much different in this respect. As a user, I don't think
many of them immediately remove an inactive group from their subscribed
list and go searching other media. They may use other media too, but
not just because they haven't seen an article in a Usenet group for a day.
>Anyone who cared about a topic for which the newsgroup died would find
>another source of information on that topic.
They might find additional sources, but probably not "to replace".
>They might leave the dead
>group in their list of subscribed groups and they might notice if an
>article appeared there.
From personal experience, I can tell you that I notice every article in
every nearly-dead group still in my .newsrc. It's not that hard. "They
might?" No, "they will".
>completely.) But noticing "anything that appears" is a far cry from
>returning to the newsgroup.
If the see it when it appears, that means they haven't left.
>If the ex-user has found another reliable
>source of information on the topic, why should they return to the Usenet
>newsgroup?
Because they haven't left.
Adam H. Kerman
>Thus spake "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
>>>Interesting. Can you provide some statistical data to
>>>substantiate this statement? I only have ~60 peers
>>>and can't confirm this observation from my own experience.
>>You mean by using the propagation search engine whose results you've slammed
>>any number of times in the past?
>Obviously I was hoping for something more reliable than that :-P
You know what's available as well as I do, and that's what there is. I'd
still love it if you would help to improve it by providing any servers you
know of with publicly searchable active files to be added.
>>From anecdotal evidence of my own discussions
>>with News administrators willing to create a group on request but unwilling
>>to create new Big 8 groups they don't expect their users would read?
>Anecdotal evidence does not justify a statement like "Big8 control
>messages are generally ignored".
I can go only by my own experience, and the experiences of others who
follow configging issues.
>>Or do you mean an extrapolation of the universe of News servers that take
>>Big 8 groups from a representative sample, which of course no one has?
>>Of course if your 60 peers are known to have publicly searchable active
>>files, why are you keeping their contact information a secret from the
>>maintainer of the propagation search tool who would only be too glad
>>to include them?
>The active file of a news server does not give an indication whether
>control messages are processed automatically or groups are created
>and deleted manually.
That's true.
>In order to circumstatiate your claim you will have to put a lot
>more effort into gathering reliable information about how the top 500
>newsservers handle Big 8 control messages. Simply reading some active
>files is just not sufficient.
I don't need to know if they are handled automatically or manually.
Manual handling doesn't tell us that they aren't accepted. In fact, it's
probably a better way to run a News server, to review control messages
prior to processing them.
Kathy Morgan
> Adam, just answer the question. I asked you for data to indicate that there's
> been a big change in automatic acceptance of **group messages. The comment's
> been made a few times, but I have yet to see real numbers. You don't need to
> attack when no offense is given. It may be more fun, but it's
> counterproductive if you want improvement.
Ah, but he doesn't want improvement, he just wants the excuse to attack.
--
Kathy, speaking just for myself
Adam H. Kerman
>Generally, Bambi control messages are not acted upon automatically at the
>vast majority of servers. There are known cases in which newgroup messages
>are acted upon automatically, while checkgroups messages and rmgroup
>messages are ignored.
I should amend this to indicate that manual processing of control messages
after review is a reasonable way to administer a News server. The control
message being acted upon is acceptable to the News administrator.
Adam H. Kerman
David, it was unnecessary for you to offend me by claiming that I was blaming
the Bambies for the existence of a bad situation, when I'm blaming them for
failure to address it. Still waiting for that apology...
David Bostwick
You're offended at anything that suits you. The board has been blamed for
everything from global warming to global cooling. You've been one of the most
vocal at assigning blame, and you've attacked those who used to be your buds,
because they turned traitor and actually started working in the real world
instead of tilting at windmills. Does every comment have to be prefaced with,
"Adam, I'm not talking about you, but..." for you not to take offense? We
could create a new acronym, AINTAYB. If that's not good enough, maybe you
could provide some boilerplate so that no one offends your delicate soul.
No apology is necessary, because I wasn't aiming at you. Since you blame the
board for everything, though, I can understand why you'd take a general
statement and apply it to yourself.
You still haven't answered the question, but I'm not surprised.
<gomer pyle>
"Straw man, straw man, straw man!"
<\gp>
Peter J Ross
<c28...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> In article <7lh5o2F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>It makes no sense for me to jump in and try to do anything for groups
>>that are being discussed so far. I have no expertise that would help,
>>nor interest in the topics.
>
> Yes, you have no expertise in moderation of newsgroups.
I thought he was a rather good moderator of both news.groups.reviews
and soc.men.moderated.
His bizarre behaviour as a moderator of news.groups.proposals would be
relevant only if he were a candidate to moderate an equally bizarre
group. Even in NGP he's only doing what everybody, including his
masters, expected NGP moderators to do (on pain of being fired if they
did otherwise).
--
PJR :-)
news.admin.announce (a low-volume, moderated Usenet group)
Read and post announcements of interest to news administrators.
See <http://www.robomod.net/news.admin.announce/info.html>.
Peter J Ross
Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> Steve Bonine wrote:
>> [...]
>> I think no justification is needed if a new volunteer moderator steps
>> forward. The group is pre-approved so all that is needed to me is a
>> long enough timeout to confirm the previous moderators are gone and a
>> new moderator who has moderation software and a host to run it on
>> (includes use of software and host supplied by someone else). I think
>> this in spite of my experience with soc.religion.shamanism that was
>> revived and then a couple of years later deleted for lack of traffic.
>
> When a moderator passes over control to a new team, then the decision
> is made by the old moderator. not the board.
Yes.
This applied even in the case of news.admin.announce, where all three
retiring moderators were current or former Bambies.
> When control is handed over to a new team without approval of the old
> one, then the decision is made by the board, not the old moderator.
Yes again. But doesn't this imply that the Bambies *could* interfere
in a regular handover, even if they choose not to?
> The board makes decisions by voting.
Or by "consensus".
>>> My hope may be just a hope. Based on comments I've read, I conclude
>>> that the goal of Alexander's project is to remove "black holes" from the
>>> canonical list, and that if a newsgroup has a working moderation
>>> platform he's fine with it.
>>
>> If the goal is only removing black holes then getting volunteers should
>> be sufficient for him.
>
> The goal is to reach a sustainable solution. If a dead group does not
> get revived that it will end up as black hole again, sooner or later.
>
>> [...] I am aware that since many NSPs do not
>> automatically follow signed control messages the result is splintering
>> UseNet more than it already is.
>
> By that logic we should close shop and hand over to alt.config.
No, you should encourage more NSPs to process your signed contorl
messages. The alt.* approach works for alt.* - and only for alt.*.
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Adam H. Kerman
I'm offended that the rest of your complaint is repetitious. You're boring,
not even trying to amuse.
Peter J Ross
Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> [...]
>> I'm willing to act as a caretaker moderator for groups whose previous
>> moderators are AWOL.
>> [...]
>> Saving the two JAIR groups is, IMO, worth doing, and I will try to do
>> it if I'm invited to do so. I'd like to see you making similar
>> promises.
>
> Well, thanks for your offer. I don't get many. :-)
> However, I see severe shortcomings.
>
> My two cents of advice:
>
> Appointing new moderators without approval of the old ones requires
> a vote of the board.
That would probably be enough to rule me out. I despise some of your
colleagues for various good reasons, and they despise me because of
stuff they've made up. I'd be very surprised if I "won" any Bamby
vote.
> Temporary care-taking makes sense only if a permanent solution is
> underway. Things happen, and plans fail. But deliberately taking the
> road to nowhere (aka caretaker moderator without plan) is not an
> option. See it like this: Nobody likes to vote again and again on the
> same issue.
The plan would be to see if articles were received if it became
possible again for them to be received. If not, there would be no need
to vote twice on the same issue.
Vote #1: appoint a moderator.
Vote #2: remove the group on the moderator's advice.
> A clear and unambiguous statement of the volunteer is absolutely
> required.
Clearly and unambiguously, I'd keep the JAIR groups ticking over for a
year, and then suggest rmgrouping them if there were no relevant
traffic.
> Reviving a dead moderated group is like proposing a new one.
Sometimes, yes, but it depends on whether posts are bouncing off the
submission address.
> So you should answer the same questions.
> - Where are the users?
I don't know that there are any. I also don't know that there aren't a
hundred of them. Reactivating the newsgroup is the only way of finding
out.
> - Where is the traffic?
The traffic would comprise:
1. Pointers posted by me in CAJP to articles mentioned on
http://www.jair.org/. E.g.,
| F. Hutter, H. H. Hoos, K. Leyton-Brown and T. Stuetzle (2009)
| "ParamILS: An Automatic Algorithm Configuration Framework"
| For details see <http://www.jair.org/papers/paper2861.html>
2. Abstracts or complete articles posted in CAJP, if the authors chose
to submit them. (Obviously I'd contact jair.org to see if they were
interested in setting up some kind of gateway.)
3. Announcements in CAJA of significant changes to the journal or the
associated website.
4. I'd probably also do a monthly "expert moderators wanted" post, and
maybe post the charters from time to time too.
So I could guarantee *some* traffic in the JAIR groups, but I'd be
surprised if there were much that I didn't generate myself.
> - What is your expertise with the topic?
Pretty nearly none. But I think I can tell the difference between a
paper that's appeared on jair.org and a troll.
> - How does your team want to operate 24/7/365? (No, robomoderation is
> not the answer. The board could do that if there were a point.)
I'm very reluctant to be a sole moderator of any newsgroup, mailing
list or forum. Ideally, I'd always like to have co-moderators from the
Americas and Australasia.
But I don't think the JAIR groups need to have the queue checked more
than once a day. They're not *discussion* groups.
> Also it might be a good idea to post a formal RFD. (You get a free
> pass only for obvious (TM) groups, not for obviously dead ones.)
>
> Yes, I know that the last point is against your faith.
I have no religious objection to writing and posting an RFD in NAN,
news.groups, the two JAIR groups and comp.ai, making a total of five
groups. But some people have a religious objection to allowing such an
RFD to appear in NAN if it doesn't also appear in NGP. Usenet will
benefit more from the removal of NGP than from the continued existence
of comp.ai.jair.*, as I think I've demonstrated with facts, not faith,
many times.
"The Great One"
"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
> In news.groups on Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:31:33 +0000 (UTC), Alexander
> Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> > My two cents of advice:
> >
> > Appointing new moderators without approval of the old ones requires
> > a vote of the board.
>
> I'm so "hairy & Ghay"....
> --
> PJR :-)
> slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
> extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
> newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Do tell !!
--
John C.
Mark Kramer
Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In news.groups on Fri, 6 Nov 2009 00:06:29 +0000 (UTC), Mark Kramer
><c28...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <7lh5o2F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>It makes no sense for me to jump in and try to do anything for groups
>>>that are being discussed so far. I have no expertise that would help,
>>>nor interest in the topics.
>>
>> Yes, you have no expertise in moderation of newsgroups.
>
>I thought he was a rather good moderator of both news.groups.reviews
>and soc.men.moderated.
I was simply agreeing with him for once. He said he has no expertise
that would help when referring to being a moderator. I agree. Hiding
behind them, yes, he's very experienced there.
Steve Bonine
> In news.groups on Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:31:33 +0000 (UTC), Alexander
> Bartolich<alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> Appointing new moderators without approval of the old ones requires
>> a vote of the board.
>
> That would probably be enough to rule me out. I despise some of your
> colleagues for various good reasons, and they despise me because of
> stuff they've made up. I'd be very surprised if I "won" any Bamby
> vote.
And I'd be very surprised if you didn't, if you get Alexander's
recommendation.
>> - Where are the users?
>
> I don't know that there are any. I also don't know that there aren't a
> hundred of them. Reactivating the newsgroup is the only way of finding
> out.
Reactivating the newsgroup, in itself, does not answer the question of
whether there users for this newsgroup because it's an announce group.
I would suggest that an appropriate plan would be to re-activate the
newsgroup, post the traffic mentioned below, and at the end of some
reasonable period (a year?) place a notice in the newsgroup asking for
response from users. If there was no response (like there has been no
response to the article posted there as an MVI) then the assumption can
be safely made that the newsgroup isn't being used, and the moderator
can then recommend that it be removed. If there is some response, it
will be the moderator's decision as to whether the level of apparent use
justifies the time required to post articles to it.
>> - Where is the traffic?
>
> The traffic would comprise:
>
> 1. Pointers posted by me in CAJP to articles mentioned on
> http://www.jair.org/. E.g.,
>
> | F. Hutter, H. H. Hoos, K. Leyton-Brown and T. Stuetzle (2009)
> | "ParamILS: An Automatic Algorithm Configuration Framework"
> | For details see<http://www.jair.org/papers/paper2861.html>
>
> 2. Abstracts or complete articles posted in CAJP, if the authors chose
> to submit them. (Obviously I'd contact jair.org to see if they were
> interested in setting up some kind of gateway.)
>
> 3. Announcements in CAJA of significant changes to the journal or the
> associated website.
>
> 4. I'd probably also do a monthly "expert moderators wanted" post, and
> maybe post the charters from time to time too.
>
> So I could guarantee *some* traffic in the JAIR groups, but I'd be
> surprised if there were much that I didn't generate myself.
Which, given that it's an announce group, is not really a bad thing.
The real question is whether there's anyone who wants to read the
information in Usenet, that is, whether the newsgroup still has any
reason to exist. The fact that there has been zero response to the
posting of the MVI from anyone who says that they will use the newsgroup
suggests that the audience has gone elsewhere, but as PJR states the
only way to know is to put stuff in the group for a while and see if
anyone starts reading it.
>> - What is your expertise with the topic?
>
> Pretty nearly none. But I think I can tell the difference between a
> paper that's appeared on jair.org and a troll.
Which, for this type of newsgroup, is fine. The commitment to doing the
work is more important than expertise in the topic.
>> - How does your team want to operate 24/7/365? (No, robomoderation is
>> not the answer. The board could do that if there were a point.)
>
> I'm very reluctant to be a sole moderator of any newsgroup, mailing
> list or forum. Ideally, I'd always like to have co-moderators from the
> Americas and Australasia.
>
> But I don't think the JAIR groups need to have the queue checked more
> than once a day. They're not *discussion* groups.
And there's not likely to be anything in the queue anyway. As you point
out, at least at the beginning, all of the traffic will be created by
you. It would be nice to have at least one backup moderator for times
when you're not available for an extended period, but having one is
better than things are now.
>> Also it might be a good idea to post a formal RFD. (You get a free
>> pass only for obvious (TM) groups, not for obviously dead ones.)
>>
>> Yes, I know that the last point is against your faith.
>
> I have no religious objection to writing and posting an RFD in NAN,
> news.groups, the two JAIR groups and comp.ai, making a total of five
> groups. But some people have a religious objection to allowing such an
> RFD to appear in NAN if it doesn't also appear in NGP. Usenet will
> benefit more from the removal of NGP than from the continued existence
> of comp.ai.jair.*, as I think I've demonstrated with facts, not faith,
> many times.
I respect your disdain of news.groups.proposals. After all, is it two
or three articles now that we've NOT posted there that you submitted in
error? If I wanted to thumb my nose at you, I would have accepted and
posted the articles that I knew you didn't mean to submit.
If you persist in saying that you won't take over as moderator because
you're opposed to n.g.p, I am going to assume that you are using that
issue as an means to make it appear that you're offering to help, but
not really doing so. Really . . . there's only the most tenuous tie
between trying to revive a moderated newsgroup and opposing the
existence of n.g.p. If it's something that you're willing to do for the
good of Usenet, please do it. No one will doubt your hate of n.g.p any
the less for that!
The Doctor
\"The Great One\" <hones...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message=20
>>
>> In news.groups on Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:31:33 +0000 (UTC), Alexander
>> Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> > My two cents of advice:
>> >
>> > Appointing new moderators without approval of the old ones requires
>> > a vote of the board.
>> I'd be very surprised if I won any "Bamby-votes" because
>> I'm so "hairy & Ghay"....
>> PJR :-)
>> slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
>> extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
>> newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
>
>Do tell !!
>--
>John C.
BE NICE!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
For the latest World News go to http://www.cuttingedge.org/ - Lest we forget 2009 .
Peter J Ross
Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I took
> over soc.religion.shamanism and got blasted by the regulars on
> alt.religion.shamanism for having put in the effort.
One doesn't need to be a regular of alt.religion.shamanism in order to
despise neo-Nazi spammers.
--
Peter J Ross
<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
<...>
> Reactivating the newsgroup, in itself, does not answer the question of
> whether there users for this newsgroup because it's an announce group.
The .papers group isn't precisely an announce group, though it's more
like an announce group than a discussion group.
> I would suggest that an appropriate plan would be to re-activate the
> newsgroup, post the traffic mentioned below, and at the end of some
> reasonable period (a year?)
A year is exactly my idea of a reasonable period to wait.
> place a notice in the newsgroup asking for
> response from users. If there was no response (like there has been no
> response to the article posted there as an MVI)
Quite a few people filter all crossposted articles.
> then the assumption can
> be safely made that the newsgroup isn't being used, and the moderator
> can then recommend that it be removed. If there is some response, it
> will be the moderator's decision as to whether the level of apparent use
> justifies the time required to post articles to it.
I agree that a final notice would be a good idea. Consider it aded to
the list.
<...>
> If you persist in saying that you won't take over as moderator because
> you're opposed to n.g.p,
I can't persist in saying something I haven't said.
If an RFD is really required for such a small change as this, then
somebody can post an RFD. I won't post an RFD myself if it has to
appear in NGP, but there are plenty of precedents for the group
proponent(s) and the moderator candidate(s) being different people.
> I am going to assume that you are using that
> issue as an means to make it appear that you're offering to help, but
> not really doing so.
The RFD issue was raised *after* I volunteered.
> Really . . . there's only the most tenuous tie
> between trying to revive a moderated newsgroup and opposing the
> existence of n.g.p.
There's no tie at all that I can see. There *is* a tie between being
required to post to a newsgroup and opposing the group's existence.
<...>
Peter J Ross
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>>>[...] I am aware that since many NSPs do not automatically follow
>>>signed control messages the result is splintering UseNet more than it
>>>already is.
>
>>By that logic we should close shop and hand over to alt.config.
>
> Generally, Bambi control messages are not acted upon automatically at the
> vast majority of servers. There are known cases in which newgroup messages
> are acted upon automatically, while checkgroups messages and rmgroup
> messages are ignored.
There are also servers that seem to process checkgroups but not
newgroups. And of course there are servers that accept unsigned
newgroups.
Very few servers seem to process Big-8 rmgroups. Alexander's is one of
them, and the biggest is probably NIN.
> Generally, Bambi hides its head in the sand with regard to this issue,
> because it's so much easier to proceed with processes to neaten up the
> list of the set of newsgroups Bambi recognizes than to gain widespread
> acceptance of Bambi control messages.
However, moderated newsgroups *can* be shut down (assuming the consent
of the moderators, if there are any), whether rmgroups are processed
or not.
> Any moron can send a rmgroup message. It takes a committee constantly
> reassuring itself that the sending of rmgroup messages gives its members
> real power and isn't just meaningless busiwork to maintain the shared
> delusion of its members.
It's a long time since the Bambies last issued an rmgroup. It was
probably the Warcraft group.
> There is a solution, of course, but it requires actual work and follow
> through: Change the Bambi top priority from sending control messages for
> the sake of sending control messages to gaining greater acceptance of its
> checkgroups messages.
Hear, hear!
But it's important to remember that requesting a newsgroup in the guise
of an ordinary user who's interested in the group's topic was, and
still would be, dishonest.
> Continue to believe other than rmgroup messages are mostly ignored and
> you will continue to be laughed at.
--
Peter J Ross
<david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote:
> In article <hd9jsh$qfu$1...@news.albasani.net>, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>
>>>>[...] I am aware that since many NSPs do not automatically follow
>>>>signed control messages the result is splintering UseNet more than it
>>>>already is.
>>
>>>By that logic we should close shop and hand over to alt.config.
>>
>>Generally, Bambi control messages are not acted upon automatically at the
>>vast majority of servers. There are known cases in which newgroup messages
>>are acted upon automatically, while checkgroups messages and rmgroup
>>messages are ignored.
>>
>
> And how has this changed over the last few years, from tale to Russ to the
> board? If it's changed a lot, is the change due to the way the hand-off was
> done, or just a loss of interest in Usenet by admins? Without those answers,
> the board can't be blamed for it.
The Bambies aren't being blamed for the situation (at least not by me,
as I've always made very clear). They're being blamed for not caring
about the situation or trying to find honest solutions for it. (A
dishonest solution was attempted in the case of the TUR-I group, but
that doesn't count.)
Peter J Ross
<kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
Do *you* want improvement?
My last suggestion, a few months ago, was to contact the admins of
servers like GigaNews and HighWinds, who pay little or no attention to
Big-8 management, with polite suggestions for improving their users'
experience of the Big-8 by processing your signed control messages.
Was that even tried?
Peter J Ross
<ray...@banana.shacknet.nu> wrote:
> Thus spake "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
>
>> Generally, Bambi control messages are not acted upon automatically at the
>> vast majority of servers. There are known cases in which newgroup messages
>> are acted upon automatically, while checkgroups messages and rmgroup
>> messages are ignored.
>
> Interesting. Can you provide some statistical data to
> substantiate this statement? I only have ~60 peers
> and can't confirm this observation from my own experience.
>
> TIA
The Newsgroup Propagation Tool can be used to detect some servers that
treat the Big-8 as if it were alt.*.
A "known case" of a server that acts on Big-8 newgroups (and indeed
*all* newgroups) but ignores checkgroups and rmgroups is news.alt.net.
Other probable cases are GigaNews and HighWinds, though it's possible
that what looks like processing a newgroup is merely a reaction to a
request from a user.
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> There are also servers that seem to process checkgroups but not
> newgroups. And of course there are servers that accept unsigned
> newgroups.
>
> Very few servers seem to process Big-8 rmgroups. Alexander's is one of
> them, and the biggest is probably NIN.
What about Ray Banana's news.eternal-september.org?
--
Jeremy Nixon
> My last suggestion, a few months ago, was to contact the admins of
> servers like GigaNews and HighWinds, who pay little or no attention to
> Big-8 management, with polite suggestions for improving their users'
> experience of the Big-8 by processing your signed control messages.
> Was that even tried?
I've tried it multiple times. Those services are run by people who
don't use Usenet and neither understand nor care about it. I personally
know people at Giganews, I have physically been in their office, and
I have little hope.
--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid
Member of the Big-8 Management Board
Peter J Ross
Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> Very few servers seem to process Big-8 rmgroups. Alexander's is one of
>> them, and the biggest is probably NIN.
>
> What about Ray Banana's news.eternal-september.org?
That's also one of them. I think X-Privat is another, and I'm sure
they're not the only ones.
But take a look at this link:
Half of the servers polled (25 of 50) still carry
news.software.anu-news, despite an entirely uncontroversial rmgroup
process a couple of years ago.
If you want Big-8 rmgroups to be meaningful, why not contact the
admins of servers who ignore them? And do similar research to identify
the smaller number of servers who ignore newgroups, checkgroups or
both?
Adam and I have been asking for this to be done since we first became
aware of the problem. We've tried asking politely. We've tried asking
rudely. We've tried asking in ALL CAPS. We've tried whispering. But
nothing seems to have been done, and yet it seems to us to be the most
obvious thing that *needs* to be done..
Peter J Ross
<~$!~@u.defocus.net> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My last suggestion, a few months ago, was to contact the admins of
>> servers like GigaNews and HighWinds, who pay little or no attention to
>> Big-8 management, with polite suggestions for improving their users'
>> experience of the Big-8 by processing your signed control messages.
>> Was that even tried?
>
> I've tried it multiple times. Those services are run by people who
> don't use Usenet and neither understand nor care about it. I personally
> know people at Giganews, I have physically been in their office, and
> I have little hope.
Has it been tried systematically?
Shared Secrets is an example of a server that pays little attention to
your edicts, but Robb uses Usenet, understands it and cares about it.
The University of London Computer Centre sounds impressive. Surely
somebody on Usenet must know somebody there?
Either you're adminstering the Big-8 for everybody or you're
administering it for the benefit of a few admins (such as Alexander,
Ray, Dmitry et al.) and their users.
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> admins of servers who ignore them? And do similar research to identify
> the smaller number of servers who ignore newgroups, checkgroups or
> both?
http://groups.google.at/group/news.groups/msg/ce66e12fe17cfb87
# From: Jeremy Nixon [...]
# Message-ID: <7m4h2qF...@mid.individual.net>
# [...]
# I've tried it multiple times. Those services are run by people who
# don't use Usenet and neither understand nor care about it. I personally
# know people at Giganews, I have physically been in their office, and
# I have little hope.
> Adam and I have been asking for this to be done since we first became
> aware of the problem. We've tried asking politely. We've tried asking
> rudely. We've tried asking in ALL CAPS. We've tried whispering. But
> nothing seems to have been done, and yet it seems to us to be the most
> obvious thing that *needs* to be done..
"Daddy, I want Santa to give me a Pony. I have asked you to tell him.
I dit it politely, rudely, in ALL CAPS, and whispering. But nothing
seems to have been done. And yet the obvious way to get a Pony is to
tell Santa."
Please, grow up.
A lot of servers are basically unmaintained and run on automatic pilot.
And the customers of commercial binary providers don't care about the
BIG8 (or any other text-only hierarchy).
--
Adam H. Kerman
>Please, grow up.
That's a problem statement, not a plan of action.
As long as you recognize the problem, stop issuing control messages as
if the problem didn't exist.
Peter J Ross
Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> [...]
>> If you want Big-8 rmgroups to be meaningful, why not contact the
>> admins of servers who ignore them? And do similar research to identify
>> the smaller number of servers who ignore newgroups, checkgroups or
>> both?
>
> http://groups.google.at/group/news.groups/msg/ce66e12fe17cfb87
> # From: Jeremy Nixon [...]
> # Message-ID: <7m4h2qF...@mid.individual.net>
> # [...]
> # I've tried it multiple times. Those services are run by people who
> # don't use Usenet and neither understand nor care about it. I personally
> # know people at Giganews, I have physically been in their office, and
> # I have little hope.
I replied to Jeremy's post before you drew my attention to it, though
I hadn't read it when I replied to yours.
>> Adam and I have been asking for this to be done since we first became
>> aware of the problem. We've tried asking politely. We've tried asking
>> rudely. We've tried asking in ALL CAPS. We've tried whispering. But
>> nothing seems to have been done, and yet it seems to us to be the most
>> obvious thing that *needs* to be done..
>
> "Daddy, I want Santa to give me a Pony. I have asked you to tell him.
> I dit it politely, rudely, in ALL CAPS, and whispering. But nothing
> seems to have been done. And yet the obvious way to get a Pony is to
> tell Santa."
>
> Please, grow up.
Oh dear. I see you've received your copy of The Bambies' Big Book Of
Effective Refutations.
> A lot of servers are basically unmaintained and run on automatic pilot.
> And the customers of commercial binary providers don't care about the
> BIG8 (or any other text-only hierarchy).
Don't you think it might be worth trying to make a small difference?
Surely you can't wholly have "gone native" already?
"The Great One"
"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
> Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> > # I've tried it multiple times. Those services are run by people who
> > # don't use Usenet and neither understand nor care about it. I personally
> > # know people at Giganews, I have physically been in their office, and
> > # I have little hope.
>
> --
Why do you ask, Goober-Smoocher Ross ??
--
John C.
Jeremy Nixon
> If you want Big-8 rmgroups to be meaningful, why not contact the
> admins of servers who ignore them? And do similar research to identify
> the smaller number of servers who ignore newgroups, checkgroups or
> both?
>
> Adam and I have been asking for this to be done since we first became
> aware of the problem. We've tried asking politely. We've tried asking
> rudely. We've tried asking in ALL CAPS. We've tried whispering. But
> nothing seems to have been done, and yet it seems to us to be the most
> obvious thing that *needs* to be done..
It might be time for another round of attempts.
Have you considered that you could do this yourself, too?
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you want Big-8 rmgroups to be meaningful, why not contact the
>> admins of servers who ignore them? ...
>It might be time for another round of attempts.
A couple of years ago, I prepared a list of contact addresses
for all of the NSPs that I could identify.
Some members of the board and news.groups were unhappy
with the idea of sending unsolicited bulk e-mail to
NSPs. Some folks promised to contact their service
providers to warn them that I would soon be spamming
them and to ask them to disregard any communications
from the board.
I dropped the project.
Marty
--
Co-chair of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) <http://www.big-8.org>
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
Alexander Bartolich
>> Adam and I have been asking for this to be done since we first became
>> aware of the problem. We've tried asking politely. We've tried asking
>> rudely. We've tried asking in ALL CAPS. We've tried whispering. But
>> nothing seems to have been done, and yet it seems to us to be the most
>> obvious thing that *needs* to be done..
>
> It might be time for another round of attempts.
>
> Have you considered that you could do this yourself, too?
To quote myself:
If providers don't care about compliance with the group list then they
- either don't care about their customers
- or their customers don't care about the checkgroups
So the straightforward way to achieve compliance is to get an account
on those systems and ask for it as a customer.
--
Ray Banana
> A couple of years ago, I prepared a list of contact addresses
> for all of the NSPs that I could identify.
> Some members of the board and news.groups were unhappy
> with the idea of sending unsolicited bulk e-mail to
> NSPs. Some folks promised to contact their service
> providers to warn them that I would soon be spamming
> them and to ask them to disregard any communications
> from the board.
> I dropped the project.
Would that have been the News Service Providers Committee
mentioned at
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=workgroups:nspc
If so, shouldn't the page be updated to reflect the current
status?
I remember getting a mail from Gina some time ago (2 years?)
that looked like the draft shown on the web page, though.
--
Too many ingredients in the soup, no room for a spoon
http://www.eternal-september.org
Steve Bonine
> If providers don't care about compliance with the group list then they
> - either don't care about their customers
> - or their customers don't care about the checkgroups
>
> So the straightforward way to achieve compliance is to get an account
> on those systems and ask for it as a customer.
I agree with Alexander. There are many ways to waste time related to
big-8 administration, and trying to lead these horses to water is high
on the list.
Take Giganews, for example. Their marketing strategy is based on the
number of newsgroups that they provide. They don't mention that most of
the ones listed in the big-8 hierarchies are completely bogus. (There
are 16 groups in their active file named news.groups.a*, and that's just
"a*".) Using checkgroups would reduce that number and undermine their
marketing strategy.
Times have changed. These days NSPs provide customer service by
responding to customer requests to add newsgroups, or the server is
completely on autopilot.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<87iqddf...@feeder.eternal-september.org>:
>Thus spake "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu>
>> A couple of years ago, I prepared a list of contact addresses
>> for all of the NSPs that I could identify. ...
>> I dropped the project.
>Would that have been the News Service Providers Committee
>mentioned at
>http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=workgroups:nspc
>If so, shouldn't the page be updated to reflect the current
>status?
OK. Done.
"Status update (14 November 2009): No progress since 21
December 2006 or thereabouts. The proposal to contact
all known NSPs was derailed by anxieties about sending
unsolicited bulk e-mail. No other method of engaging
NSPs was proposed, other than hoping that they might
find this page by accident."
In the draft letter, I've also filled in the URL for
the public part of the n.a.n key:
http://www.panix.com/~nan/gpg.html
And removed the signature from the draft letter.
>I remember getting a mail from Gina some time ago (2 years?)
>that looked like the draft shown on the web page, though.
She may be a client or a peer of yours. Or she may have
just been exercising the glorious freedom of the children
of G-d. ;o)
Adam H. Kerman
>Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>>Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Adam and I have been asking for this to be done since we first became
>>>aware of the problem. We've tried asking politely. We've tried asking
>>>rudely. We've tried asking in ALL CAPS. We've tried whispering. But
>>>nothing seems to have been done, and yet it seems to us to be the most
>>>obvious thing that *needs* to be done..
>>It might be time for another round of attempts.
>>Have you considered that you could do this yourself, too?
>To quote myself:
>If providers don't care about compliance with the group list then they
>- either don't care about their customers
>- or their customers don't care about the checkgroups
That's not the least bit persuassive and is rather irrelevant to what
Jeremy said.
I asked you about a specific News administrator who doesn't take control
messages and who is known to post to Usenet administrative newsgroups,
and you blew it off when I asked if he doesn't care about his customers.
>So the straightforward way to achieve compliance is to get an account
>on those systems and ask for it as a customer.
. . . and yet bulk rmgroups of moderated groups remains your top priority,
even though no one is obliged to process those rmgroups.
Just the mere fact that you describe it as achieving compliance demostrates
how far off the mark you are. You really have deluded yourself into thinking
that you're Usenet Central.
Lemme remind you of something that you should understand but clearly don't:
The purpose of checkgroups ISN'T to force all News administrators to create
exactly the same set of Big 8 newsgroups that the hierarchy administrator
recognizes, it's just to make it easier to do so if they think that's the
best way to present Big 8 to their users.
It's not your business if they don't create certain newsgroups or create
certain groups that you don't recognize.
The main purpose of control messages is to state categorically to a News
administrator that IF he has created a group in which Topic A is discussed,
THEN the syntactically correct name of that group is [group name]. This is
what facilitates exchange of articles, nothing else.
Your main role is not to ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE but to PERSUADE that such-and-such
is the syntactically correct name of the group for Topic A.
Alexander Bartolich
> Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> [...]
>> "Daddy, I want Santa to give me a Pony. I have asked you to tell him.
>> I dit it politely, rudely, in ALL CAPS, and whispering. But nothing
>> seems to have been done. And yet the obvious way to get a Pony is to
>> tell Santa."
>>
>> Please, grow up.
>
> Oh dear. I see you've received your copy of The Bambies' Big Book Of
> Effective Refutations.
As far as I understand it, your (TM) line of thought is as follows:
- the B8MB can do something about it
- it's the fault of the B8MB if nothing is done
- we (TM) are absolutely entitled to the services of the B8MB
Please, check your premisses.
>> A lot of servers are basically unmaintained and run on automatic pilot.
>> And the customers of commercial binary providers don't care about the
>> BIG8 (or any other text-only hierarchy).
>
> Don't you think it might be worth trying to make a small difference?
So what have you done to make a difference?
> Surely you can't wholly have "gone native" already?
Kooks come in many sizes, colors and tastes. However, there is one
thing they all have in common, though: A strong, unfailing sense of
entitlement.
Please, don't contract the kook disease. Usenet is not a right.
--
Adam H. Kerman
You've gone native.
Doug Freyburger
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> > Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>>> admins of servers who ignore them?
>
>
> A lot of servers are basically unmaintained and run on automatic pilot.
> And the customers of commercial binary providers don't care about the
> BIG8 (or any other text-only hierarchy).
So members of the board have been in contact with large services like
Giganews and the folks running Giganews just don't care. Does anyone
have a suggestion to offer that works?
1) Encourage users to move off Giganews onto competently run services.
2) Have a few Giganews paying customers make requests to add and remove
groups as the signed control messages come through.
>>> And do similar research to identify
>>> the smaller number of servers who ignore newgroups, checkgroups or
>>> both?
That's the part of the question that didn't get a response. There are
lists of NSPs by number of postings and other measurements of size.
Maybe there can be a registry of folks active on UseNet who want to help
out by improving coverage of the large NSPs - Volunteer to make usr
requests as the NAN postigns come through.
I tried that on Goggle Groups for a while and these days they are even
ignoring users requests. I've since switched to a different NSP for the
moment. I'd switch NSPs again if it helped coverage.