Call for Volunteers: Advisory Board
NAN Team
In Message-ID: <11297405...@isc.org>, I outlined a plan to
hand control of the Big-8 group list to a publicly-selected Board.
Now it is time to ask for volunteers to serve on the preliminary/initial
Board. This Board will be charged with determining, in part:
o Its terms, and how to hold elections.
o Its officers/executives, and their function.
o What sort of procedure it wants to use for creating/removing groups.
o The various bylaws of how such a thing will work.
o The order in which it wants to accomplish these tasks.
o For that matter, its name, which was originally given as "Advisory
Board."
In order to have a Big-8 creation/removal system, we need people
who are willing to volunteer some of their time to create and
supervise the system. If there aren't enough people, there will
be no system.
The following people have explicitly volunteered: Brian Edmonds,
Tim Skirvin, and Ru Igarashi. These people have all contributed
notably to Usenet over the years. Brian and Tim have also expressed
their willingness to serve as Board officers/executives. Other
people have mentioned a willingness to serve as well, but either I
did not understand them, or they were a little hesitant, and so
haven't been listed here. I'd name the people whom I _think_ are
interested, but that seems potentially unfair to them. It's not
that I don't want you, so please say so definitively. And thank
you for your interest.
I also want to ask explicitly that one or more people with experience
on the UK.* Council volunteer for this preliminary/initial Board,
in order to help get things off the ground.
Now a digression for people who are more interested in complaining
than in taking responsibility for the process:
There have been various things said about the announcement of October
19th, many of them claiming things that are not found in the
announcement. While this is disappointing, of course, there is
nothing I can do to prevent people from discussing whatever they
want to discuss. However, finding these new people to be in charge
of the Big-8 creation/removal system might be helpful, if you want
to have a system.
The following statements seem blindingly obvious, but seem to have
largely escaped consideration on news.groups:
o If you want people who will ask for public vote on all/most new
rules, then lobby/vote for people who want to do this.
o If you want people who will be totally dictatorial, then lobby/vote
for people who will do this.
o If you want people to go back to following exactly the old system,
then lobby/vote for people who will do this.
o If you want to use exactly the UK.* system, then lobby/vote for
people who will do this.
Do I need to continue in this tedious manner? The key word here
is *people*, i.e. new people. Do not order us around. We are not
your slaves. This is for you -- out there -- to sort out. If you
don't want to sort it out, then there will be no Big-8 creation/removal
process. It's as simple as that.
End of digression, and a return to addressing people who are
interested and willing to volunteer their time for Big-8 group list
maintenance: If you get sorted what you want to do, Russ and I
will make your technical transition a lot easier than ours was.
Thank you, as always, for your support.
Todd McComb for NAN Team
David Matthewman
> End of digression, and a return to addressing people who are
> interested and willing to volunteer their time for Big-8 group list
> maintenance: If you get sorted what you want to do, Russ and I
> will make your technical transition a lot easier than ours was.
*sticks hand up*
I will happily defer to people with more experience of the newsgroup
creation than I have. I have, for example, never been a proponent, because
I came here with a proposal, read the group for a month, and quickly
realised that it wasn't a big-8-type group. I've been reading news.groups
on and off for about eight years, though, and certainly am willing to
contribute time and effort to the newsgroup creation process.
--
David Matthewman
Wayne Brown
>
>
> Do I need to continue in this tedious manner? The key word here
> is *people*, i.e. new people. Do not order us around. We are not
> your slaves. This is for you -- out there -- to sort out. If you
> don't want to sort it out, then there will be no Big-8 creation/removal
> process. It's as simple as that.
Fine. Count this as my "lobby/vote" for "no Big-8 creation/removal
process."
--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwb...@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"
Todd Michel McComb
David Matthewman <da...@matthewman.org> wrote:
>*sticks hand up*
OK, noted, thanks.
TMM
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
in <11307727...@isc.org>:
> ... I'd name the people whom I _think_ are
>interested, but that seems potentially unfair to them. It's not
>that I don't want you, so please say so definitively. ...
Because you asked, I volunteer.
But I have misgivings about whether I'm a good person to
be on the board both because of my personality (I'm
argumentative) and my profession (I'm identified with
a religious institution).
Nevertheless, if the system is going to work, it's
going to take work to fix what ails it. I'd be happy to
serve in whatever capacity I can.
Marty
Todd Michel McComb
Martin X. Moleski, SJ <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>Because you asked, I volunteer. .... I'd be happy to serve in
>whatever capacity I can.
Well, I hope it's more for the second reason than for the first
reason. That's kind of important.
The other stuff you said made me laugh. You're argumentative? By
the standards of news.groups? Really? I'm chuckling again. As
far as the religious institution, we don't want to have all technical
people; we need variety.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Todd Michel McComb
Pesky Irritant <pe...@irritant.com> wrote:
>I volunteer!
OK, noted. -TMM
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<dk5lbo$9l3$1...@agricola.medieval.org>:
>In article <47kcm1pposecq0jui...@4ax.com>,
>Martin X. Moleski, SJ <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>>Because you asked, I volunteer. .... I'd be happy to serve in
>>whatever capacity I can.
>Well, I hope it's more for the second reason than for the first
>reason. That's kind of important.
Yes.
I love newsgroups.
I'm grateful to the people who got them going and
keep them going.
I'd be happy to be of service if I can be.
>The other stuff you said made me laugh. You're argumentative?
Yes. :o(
>By
>the standards of news.groups? Really?
Yup. I try not to troll or flame, but I know that
I go on longer about things that interest me than
some folks would like. :o(
> ... we need variety.
OK.
Marty
Henrietta K Thomas
SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:32:39 -0800, newgroup...@isc.org (NAN Team) wrote
>in <11307727...@isc.org>:
>
>> ... I'd name the people whom I _think_ are
>>interested, but that seems potentially unfair to them. It's not
>>that I don't want you, so please say so definitively. ...
>
>Because you asked, I volunteer.
>
>But I have misgivings about whether I'm a good person to
>be on the board both because of my personality (I'm
>argumentative)
So is everyone else in news.groups.
>and my profession (I'm identified with
>a religious institution).
There is no religious test in Usenet that I know of. Now, if your
institution might have a problem with you getting involved in
news.groups, that would be a different story.....
hkt
--
Unless stated otherwise, the opinions expressed in
this article are mine alone, and do not represent
official policy of the us.* hierarchy. For information
about the us.* hierarchy, see the us.* website at
http://www.usenetnews.us;
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<u27em1leak2l39uue...@4ax.com>:
>> ... (I'm identified with
>>a religious institution).
>There is no religious test in Usenet that I know of. Now, if your
>institution might have a problem with you getting involved in
>news.groups, that would be a different story.....
I suppose there could be topics proposed for newsgroups
that might cause me to recuse myself during that deliberation.
In terms of any other canonical restrictions, I can't think
of any offhand. In the nineteenth century, Catholics were
forbidden to participate in Masonic lodges because of
theological conflicts between the two organizations.
I know I couldn't run for public office the way Fr. Drinan, SJ,
did in the 70s.
Helping sustain a set of forums in which people can say
what they want to say doesn't seem to me to be
inconsistent with my vocation.
Marty
Todd Michel McComb
OK, great, noted. --TMM
Vito Kuhn
>
> In Message-ID: <11297405...@isc.org>, I outlined a plan to
> hand control of the Big-8 group list to a publicly-selected Board.
>
> Now it is time to ask for volunteers to serve on the preliminary/initial
> Board.
I would like to volunteer. Please count me in as a candidate to serve on
the board.
VK
Todd Michel McComb
OK, noted. -TMM
Henrietta K Thomas
SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:47:03 -0600, Henrietta K Thomas <h...@xnet.com> wrote in
><u27em1leak2l39uue...@4ax.com>:
>
>>> ... (I'm identified with
>>>a religious institution).
>
>>There is no religious test in Usenet that I know of. Now, if your
>>institution might have a problem with you getting involved in
>>news.groups, that would be a different story.....
>
>I suppose there could be topics proposed for newsgroups
>that might cause me to recuse myself during that deliberation.
More than a few, I would say.
>In terms of any other canonical restrictions, I can't think
>of any offhand. In the nineteenth century, Catholics were
>forbidden to participate in Masonic lodges because of
>theological conflicts between the two organizations.
There will always be restrictions between religious groups based on
theological differences.
>I know I couldn't run for public office the way Fr. Drinan, SJ,
>did in the 70s.
I would imagine there were many times when he felt a conflict of
interest between his duties in the Congress and his faith.
>Helping sustain a set of forums in which people can say
>what they want to say doesn't seem to me to be
>inconsistent with my vocation.
But I think you should avoid being named keeper of the key.
NAN Team
indicates their willingness to volunteer, so they know that I have
seen that indication. This is happening in either news.groups or
in e-mail, depending on where the volunteer responds.
Either by next Monday, or when self-nominations slow to a trickle,
I will post to n.a.n a list of volunteers for discussion. Then we
will go from there, hopefully to convene a sitting Board in a
reasonable period of time, but at least two weeks from now.
Thank you.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<46iem1l4drkvr9ag5...@4ax.com>:
>... I think you should avoid being named keeper of the key.
Agreed.
Marty
Jaques d'Alltrades
from newgroup...@isc.org (NAN Team) contains these words:
> Either by next Monday, or when self-nominations slow to a trickle,
> I will post to n.a.n a list of volunteers for discussion. Then we
> will go from there, hopefully to convene a sitting Board in a
> reasonable period of time, but at least two weeks from now.
Sitting?
Physical meeting? IRQ? Mailing List?
--
Rusty
horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/
Bill Cole
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:32:39 -0800, newgroup...@isc.org (NAN Team) wrote
> in <11307727...@isc.org>:
>
> > ... I'd name the people whom I _think_ are
> >interested, but that seems potentially unfair to them. It's not
> >that I don't want you, so please say so definitively. ...
>
> Because you asked, I volunteer.
>
> But I have misgivings about whether I'm a good person to
> be on the board both because of my personality (I'm
> argumentative) and my profession (I'm identified with
> a religious institution).
What, you don't think pointing to 5 centuries of Jesuit openness and
impartiality will alleviate everyone's trepidation?
(I hope you can take that in the spirit I say it... Big Evil Giggle...)
But seriously, I don't think you or anyone else should be see your
profession as a bar, if helping out this way is something you want to do
and can do.
> Nevertheless, if the system is going to work, it's
> going to take work to fix what ails it. I'd be happy to
> serve in whatever capacity I can.
I'm not a big fan of the plan or of the mindset it implies, but your
involvement would reduce my fatalism.
--
Now where did I hide that website...
Todd Michel McComb
Jaques d'Alltrades <rusty...@foobar.zetnet.co.ok> wrote:
>Sitting? Physical meeting? IRQ? Mailing List?
Possibly a silly choice of words, mimicking various official bodies.
I leave it up to the Board members how they want to discuss things.
I would assume a combination of news.groups/n.a.n postings and
mailing list.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
James Farrar
>
>In Message-ID: <11297405...@isc.org>, I outlined a plan to
>hand control of the Big-8 group list to a publicly-selected Board.
>
>Now it is time to ask for volunteers to serve on the preliminary/initial
>Board.
I volunteer.
I advocate transparency in the system.
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
Todd Michel McComb
James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I volunteer.
OK, noted.
>I advocate transparency in the system.
I'm not sure what this is.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
BowTie
> Now it is time to ask for volunteers to serve on the preliminary/initial
> Board.
I'll throw up my hand to volunteer.
I advocate the grass roots voice be heard!
Not that I expect to be appointed, nominated, or voted into any position, but
I fully support and applaud what you folks are doing to turn the Big 8 a new
direction. What a refreshing call for user involvement and I'd really like to
participate any way I can, to help this become a reality.
Thanks a bundle for your good work Todd, Tim, NAN *team* & company,
not to forget Russ (he's been the King for a reason ;)
these efforts will make the difference in the quality resource Usenet will
become.
Steve Young
--
a 'naysayer' never built anything.
Todd Michel McComb
BowTie <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:
>I'll throw up my hand to volunteer.
OK, noted. -TMM
BarB
Team) wrote:
I will volunteer to help in any capacity, as I think all those who
care about Usenet should do.
>o If you want people who will ask for public vote on all/most new
> rules, then lobby/vote for people who want to do this.
That's probably closest to where I am at the moment since I haven't
seen anyone suggest any other way to determine new group usage.
>
>o If you want people who will be totally dictatorial, then lobby/vote
> for people who will do this.
I will definitely be against any system which gives the proponent and
the members of the affected groups less control of their proposal.
New.groups is already seen as too paternalistic by many. On the other
hand, I will be wary of any system which relieves the proponent of
the necessity to find and recruit the users for the group he
proposes.
>
>o If you want people to go back to following exactly the old system,
> then lobby/vote for people who will do this.
I'm not against changes provided there are data to base them on.
>
>o If you want to use exactly the UK.* system, then lobby/vote for
> people who will do this.
Neutral on this one.
BarB
Todd Michel McComb
OK, noted. -TMM
Todd Michel McComb
John Stanley <sta...@shell.peak.org> wrote:
>So, yeah, sure. I'll buy in.
Interesting lead-in. Can you please confirm that you're serious?
Thank you. And, no, I'm not picking on you. I double-asked Marty
too.
TMM
Joe Bernstein
NAN Team <newgroup...@isc.org>:
> In Message-ID: <11297405...@isc.org>, I outlined a plan to
> hand control of the Big-8 group list to a publicly-selected Board.
>
> Now it is time to ask for volunteers to serve on the preliminary/initial
> Board. This Board will be charged with determining, in part:
>
> o Its terms, and how to hold elections.
>
> o Its officers/executives, and their function.
>
> o What sort of procedure it wants to use for creating/removing groups.
>
> o The various bylaws of how such a thing will work.
>
> o The order in which it wants to accomplish these tasks.
>
> o For that matter, its name, which was originally given as "Advisory
> Board."
>
> In order to have a Big-8 creation/removal system, we need people
> who are willing to volunteer some of their time to create and
> supervise the system. If there aren't enough people, there will
> be no system.
> The following statements seem blindingly obvious, but seem to have
> largely escaped consideration on news.groups:
>
> o If you want people who will ask for public vote on all/most new
> rules, then lobby/vote for people who want to do this.
>
> o If you want people who will be totally dictatorial, then lobby/vote
> for people who will do this.
>
> o If you want people to go back to following exactly the old system,
> then lobby/vote for people who will do this.
>
> o If you want to use exactly the UK.* system, then lobby/vote for
> people who will do this.
Um.
I have just posted something like a pre-proposal describing what I'd
like to see the system change to. While I'm not prepared to defend
it to the death - I'm serious about retracing how we got to where
we are, in particular because I'm practically certain Jonathan Kamens
put more thought into what has become Tim Skirvin's proposal than
has been evident from its subsequent defenders - still, I do think
*enough* of what's in it is highly defensible, that I'm also not
refusing to identify it with myself.
In that version, the advisory board has limited powers, such that
I spend a fair chunk of the document wondering how to bulk it up,
so to speak.
In Tim Skirvin's proposal, the advisors are powerful gatekeepers.
They can keep a group from being created (or removed) either by
not forwarding it to the executives, or by successfully challenging
the relevant action.
And this brings me to my point. Say I volunteer to serve as an
advisor. I've made it clear what I stand for; maybe that wins me
an election. But Saur wins too, and then he gets elected Chair,
with the powers that he and Tim Skirvin discussed in that subthread
he's been complaining didn't get any readers. And by this point
it's perfectly clear that I'm in a minority.
So there I am in Tim Skirvin's version of the advisory board. Now
one thing I can do is just refuse to keep the gate; I go ahead and
Formally Submit, oops, formally submit, any proposal nobody else
does. But the Saur/Tim Skirvin subthread had the Chair able to
decide which Advisors could submit which Proposals, so maybe I
can't even do that much. And even if I can, the other advisors can
go ahead and challenge any group I do get past the gatekeeping.
And you guys say the existing NAN moderator job wears on the soul?
What you're talking about is, in essence, a single election that
chooses members of a constitutional convention who then *also*
automatically become members of congress. Federalists and Anti-
Federalists joined at the hip.
In the worst case, where I was the only opposition voice, I'd hate
it, but it'd be even worse if I wasn't there. So yeah, I'll
volunteer.
But I'd be happier if there were *some* reasonable way of voting on
the system, without obligating the losers to help enforce a setup
they disapprove of. I concede that it isn't obvious (to me at least)
how to go about such a vote.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/> "She suited my mood, Sarah Mondleigh
did - it was like having a kitten in the room, like a vote for unreason."
<Glass Mountain>, Cynthia Voigt
Todd Michel McComb
Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>So there I am in Tim Skirvin's version of the advisory board.
Well, I don't know what is going to happen there. Many people keep
saying that Tim's proposal is a done deal -- which in a twisted
news.groups sense means they don't like it, I guess -- but I just
told you to pick whatever you want in terms of process.
>So yeah, I'll volunteer.
I have to ask you the same as a couple of others: Do you really
mean it?
>I'd be happier if there were *some* reasonable way of voting on
>the system, without obligating the losers to help enforce a setup
>they disapprove of.
If you're really unhappy, you can always resign. If we have a Board
setup with straightforward rules for filling vacancies, I don't
know why that's a problem. It's true in group decision-making that
there can be a distinct difference between decisions you don't like
but can accept, and decisions you just can't accept. Resigning in
the latter case is perfectly reasonable. I'd do it myself.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Joe Bernstein
<mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
> In article <dk73c2$pn$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
> >So there I am in Tim Skirvin's version of the advisory board.
> Well, I don't know what is going to happen there. Many people keep
> saying that Tim's proposal is a done deal -- which in a twisted
> news.groups sense means they don't like it, I guess -- but I just
> told you to pick whatever you want in terms of process.
Well, sure, but (thankfully) I'm not the only one picking.
The four choices you outlined were GWBig8Traditional, TSDoneDeal,
WBDictatorial, and JBukCloned. (Yes, I know these don't exhaust the
options, but for the purposes I use 'em for in this post, they're
enough, OK?) Well, I'm certainly closer to the JBukCloned camp than
any of the others. But it sounded like you want the election (?) of
initial board members to be what decides the system that'll actually
happen, and I can easily imagine that there'd be few enough
candidates that you could get 45% of those chosen unhappy with the
system actually picked.
> >So yeah, I'll volunteer.
>
> I have to ask you the same as a couple of others: Do you really
> mean it?
Yes. I outlined my reasoning.
Again to refer to four models. Under GWBig8Traditional and
WBDictatorial, the advisors do nothing except some (presumably
at-will) mentoring. Why shouldn't I wear a free feather in my
cap? And I don't find either of those models *offensive*, as
long as the WBDictatorial approach doesn't land us a rogue NAN
moderator.
Under JBukCloned, I've won. The least I can do is back up my
advocacy with action. And if it turns out to be onerous, then
I've the obligation to try to change it.
Under TSDoneDeal, I may be the only person standing between the
Eeevil Chair and the Will of the Peeeple. Of course I have to do
this, if things so turn out. Admittedly, it's rather more likely
that I just turn out to be roadkill, but we won't know if we
don't try.
> >I'd be happier if there were *some* reasonable way of voting on
> >the system, without obligating the losers to help enforce a setup
> >they disapprove of.
> If you're really unhappy, you can always resign. If we have a Board
> setup with straightforward rules for filling vacancies, I don't
> know why that's a problem. It's true in group decision-making that
> there can be a distinct difference between decisions you don't like
> but can accept, and decisions you just can't accept. Resigning in
> the latter case is perfectly reasonable. I'd do it myself.
The question is the flipside of Ken Arromdee's. He's pointed out
his doubt that his being an exec would make a difference because he
doubts one person *can* make a difference. On the other hand, I'm
pointing out my doubt that resigning would be the right thing to do
because I doubt one person *can't* make a difference.
Analysed another way: Electing advisors is actually a *rotten*
system if you want to avoid what Russ Allbery has complained of,
the way news.groups unlike other things he works on never all
pulls together. Mind, I wouldn't *want* news.groups to be all-pulls-
together; in its let's see nearly 23 years, it never has, and that
suggests to me that it's a *kind* of thing that isn't meant to,
that this not pulling together is not accidental but intrinsic.[1]
Which is one reason I keep referring to these discussions as
"political". And in *electoral* politics, congresscritters in the
minority don't resign (usually), they do what they can and spend
the rest of their time trying to arrange that come *next* election,
they'll no longer be in the minority.
(I'll point out the flipside of this. If the initial board picks
a system by say majority vote, then why shouldn't any subsequent
board do the same? The Big 8 system is known across Usenet as what
it now is, more or less. One big change will be a shock to many, or
at least a high percentage of those who interact with it in the
next few years. Changes every year ... urk. There goes any chance
of experienced hands coming along with many of the proposals...)
Joe Bernstein
[1] This is the main reason *why* I haven't replied to Russ Allbery's
post a ways back about the pain involved in volunteering here. If
anything I'm *much* more sensitive than y'all - you personally have
told me to grow a thicker skin - so obviously I agree with what he
wrote about the problem; and yet I see a problem so stable as
something unlikely to just up and get fixed one day.
Dave Sill
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:32:39 -0800, newgroup...@isc.org (NAN
> Team) wrote:
>
>>o If you want people who will ask for public vote on all/most new
>> rules, then lobby/vote for people who want to do this.
>
> That's probably closest to where I am at the moment since I haven't
> seen anyone suggest any other way to determine new group usage.
I have: create the proposed group and see if it succeeds. If it
doesn't, remove it.
Voting doesn't work. People vote for the wrong reasons, people stuff
the ballot box, people find the voting process too cumbersome, the
popularity of groups waxes and wanes and sometimes groups die. It's
just not possible to accurately predict a prospective group's
long-term viability.
So why bother? Why not newgroup all plausible proposed groups once a
name is decided and let The People cast the only vote that really
matters by either using the group or not? Any stillborn,
flash-in-the-pan, or simply obsolete groups should be reaped by an
automatic dead group removal process.
BTW, since I haven't seen unequivocal acknowledgment: I hereby
volunteer.
--
Dave Sill Oak Ridge National Lab, Workstation Support
Author, The qmail Handbook <http://web.infoave.net/~dsill>
<http://lifewithqmail.org/>: Almost everything you always wanted to know.
Todd Michel McComb
Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov> wrote:
>BTW, since I haven't seen unequivocal acknowledgment: I hereby
>volunteer.
I replied to your e-mail, Dave. If you didn't get it, I'll note
again here that you're on the list of volunteers.
TMM
Todd Michel McComb
Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>I can easily imagine that there'd be few enough candidates that
>you could get 45% of those chosen unhappy with the system actually
>picked.
I suppose that's possible, although I'm not sure what few candidates
has to do with it.
I wrote:
>>I have to ask you the same as a couple of others: Do you really
>>mean it?
>Yes. I outlined my reasoning.
OK, noted as a volunteer.
>Under JBukCloned, I've won.
So why didn't you propose exactly the UK.* system? It doesn't
violate any of my constraints, as far as I see it. If you did do
that, it didn't come through to me, except in smaller phrases like
the above, but then I can't possibly cast stones, since a lot of
what I've been intending to say doesn't seem to be coming through
to a lot of people.
On that point, I'm going to have to rephrase the constraints to the
Board, once we have a Board, and hopefully make it a lot simpler.
>If the initial board picks a system by say majority vote, then why
>shouldn't any subsequent board do the same?
I guess that's for the initial Board to decide.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
in <wx0y848...@sws5.ornl.gov>:
>BarB <pat...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:32:39 -0800, newgroup...@isc.org (NAN
>> Team) wrote:
>>>o If you want people who will ask for public vote on all/most new
>>> rules, then lobby/vote for people who want to do this.
>> That's probably closest to where I am at the moment since I haven't
>> seen anyone suggest any other way to determine new group usage.
>I have: create the proposed group and see if it succeeds. If it
>doesn't, remove it.
I like that idea a lot.
It's been proposed a couple of times.
It hasn't been entirely discarded; nor has it gained universal
acceptance.
I think the first priority is creating the Advisory Board. Some
day, down the line, if the AB works, it might experiment with
your method of testing new groups.
>Why not newgroup all plausible proposed groups once a
>name is decided and let The People cast the only vote that really
>matters by either using the group or not? Any stillborn,
>flash-in-the-pan, or simply obsolete groups should be reaped by an
>automatic dead group removal process.
Makes sense to me. But deciding what is "plausible" and
what is a well-formed name still needs an AB or something
like it to conduct THAT level of debate.
And the AB might decide to use some kind of survey to
determine plausibility if there is some doubt about what
to do.
Marty
Dave Sill
> I replied to your e-mail, Dave. If you didn't get it, I'll note
> again here that you're on the list of volunteers.
I got it, but you didn't explicitly ACK my volunteering. Since you've
been so careful to ensure that people are actually volunteering, I
just wanted to be sure I was on the list. Thanks.
Russ Allbery
> The main problem it has is that, according to those who know about this
> kind of thing, rmgrouping is not automated as is newgrouping. It's
> easier to create a group, but when trying to remove it, it doesn't go
> away.
> Then we get a problem similar to the scrapbooking problem, where an
> officially removed group is carried on some servers and a happy little
> troup makes it their private little home, and when the popularity of
> that home is noticed and a decision to make the group official again
> appears, they get all pissed that someone is trying to take their group
> away from them.
Everything that you say is entirely correct. I do think it's worth
discussing, though, whether we should care. Perhaps the right thing to do
is to simply ignore that particular set of complaints.
I really don't think it matters if someone objects to having their
unofficial group made official, except insofar as it causes problems for
whatever decision-making system is being used. That doesn't strike me
personally as the sort of thing about which people should get to object.
To what degree we should concern ourselves with ISPs that don't apply
checkgroups, though, is a harder question.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
BarB
>BarB <pat...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:32:39 -0800, newgroup...@isc.org (NAN
>> Team) wrote:
>>
>>>o If you want people who will ask for public vote on all/most new
>>> rules, then lobby/vote for people who want to do this.
>>
>> That's probably closest to where I am at the moment since I haven't
>> seen anyone suggest any other way to determine new group usage.
>
>I have: create the proposed group and see if it succeeds. If it
>doesn't, remove it.
There are providers who won't remove groups. I'd like to see how
group removal of the dead groups we already have, works before I'd be
willing to commit to such a procedure.
We need some way to determine who will use a group and letting users
express it in some sort of vote still seems the easiest,fairest way
to measure. I simply don't trust any news groupie, myself included,
to make this decision for a group of users.
>Voting doesn't work. People vote for the wrong reasons, people stuff
>the ballot box, people find the voting process too cumbersome, the
>popularity of groups waxes and wanes and sometimes groups die. It's
>just not possible to accurately predict a prospective group's
>long-term viability.
>
>So why bother? Why not newgroup all plausible proposed groups once a
>name is decided
How do we decide if it's plausible? Who decides the name? Let's just
say I've been on the other side when news groupies told us how we
should split our group and how we should name them. We were treated
as clueless idiots and the bad feelings never were resolved in many
cases.
> and let The People cast the only vote that really
>matters by either using the group or not?
But will they use the group? I think we really have to at least make
an educated guess at that at least until we do have a working removal
system. I am afraid of a system that relieves the proponent of the
task of promoting the group to potential users, IOW finding voters in
the current system. Looking back at previous RFDs we see the reaction
to a proponent of whom the affected group has never heard. That
proponent may be "comfortable" with posting to news.groups but
never talks to the affected users except for the posting of the RFD.
Those users must have a voice in whether the group is formed.
> Any stillborn,
>flash-in-the-pan, or simply obsolete groups should be reaped by an
>automatic dead group removal process.
Well, I'd like to see us avoid cluttering up the Big 8 with groups we
have to worry about removing. Surely the providers who care about
Usenet are not going to want to have to implement rmgroups every time
they turn around.
BarB
Dave Sill
> I think the first priority is creating the Advisory Board. Some
> day, down the line, if the AB works, it might experiment with
> your method of testing new groups.
I agree.
> Makes sense to me. But deciding what is "plausible" and
> what is a well-formed name still needs an AB or something
> like it to conduct THAT level of debate.
Yes, of course.
> And the AB might decide to use some kind of survey to
> determine plausibility if there is some doubt about what
> to do.
Sure, as long as it's clear that it's a survey and the results aren't
binding on the AB.
Todd Michel McComb
John Stanley <sta...@shell.peak.org> wrote:
>The main problem it has is that, according to those who know about
>this kind of thing, rmgrouping is not automated as is newgrouping.
I think the correct way to say this is that rmgrouping is not *as*
automated as newgrouping. Some sites automatically rmgroup, some
sites automatically newgroup. Neither set is all the sites, but
the second one is bigger. The difference between users lobbying
for their site to add a group vs. lobbying for their site to remove
a group is, I'm pretty sure, even more disproportionate.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Todd Michel McComb
Oh, I guess you're right, sorry. -TMM
Todd Michel McComb
John Stanley <sta...@shell.peak.org> wrote:
>Yeah.
OK, got it, noted. -TMM
NAN Team
Note that in the "Call for Volunteers" I have charged the initial
Board with determining its officers/execs and the role of those
officers/execs.
It has become clear to me that the announcement of October 19th
over-constrains the choices for how the Board and its officers/execs
should interact and operate, so I am officially retracting any
constraint on that interaction. This is for the new Board to decide,
as in bullet #2 of yesterday's "Call."
Todd McComb for NAN Team
Dave Sill
> The main problem it has is that, according to those who know about this
> kind of thing, rmgrouping is not automated as is newgrouping. It's easier
> to create a group, but when trying to remove it, it doesn't go away.
Yes, that's the current state of affairs, and a problem that should be
addressed. There's no reason that Big 8 rmgroups couldn't be
automatically accepted, just like Big 8 newgroups. But, even if this
problem remains and rmgroups aren't widely applied, should that be our
concern? If a news admin chooses not to accept our advice regarding
rmgroups and doesn't periodically apply checkgroups and ends up with
lots of dead newsgroups on their server, that's their decision. We can
only offer our advice--not force anyone to accept it.
Dave Sill
> The problem is more basic than that set of complaints. You also wind up
> with a highly fragmented USENET where a user may need to find more than
> one server to be able to read all the groups they want.
There's nothing preventing that now other than the lack of an
effective mechanism for removing groups and a too-high hurdle that's
currently out-of-order for creating new groups. Rogue admins have
always been able to ignore Big 8 control messages, and that's not
going to change as a result of anything we do.
> Were I a server admin who didn't want a lot of useless cruft on my
> system, and a lot of churn in the newsgroup list, I'd start ignoring
> Big 8 newgroups at that point.
Sure, that could happen. Should we let fear of that prevent us from
adopting a mechanism that solves the rest of our problems? And, if so,
aren't there similar fears that will prevent us from making any
decisions?
> One of the concepts of the Big 8 was that
> groups created there were based on some objective criterion that, while
> not guaranteeing usefulness, at least demonstrated some kind of desire
> on the part of users for the group.
Yes, but in practice we've created groups that have failed, and have
failed to create groups that are obviously needed.
> That's why admins have automated Big 8 newgroups, isn't it?
Part of that is the due to the default configuration of INN in Linux
distributions. Among those sites that have intentionally automated Big
8 newgroups, I'd say the primary reason is that the Big 8 hierarchy is
managed--not a free-for-all like alt. My proposal is not to make the
Big 8 a free-for-all--it'll still be managed by some group of
presumably elected officials. But this group wouldn't have to go
through the rigamarole of the current RFD/CFV process to filter out
nuisance new group requests.
> Take that away and you remove the reason to accept Big 8 newgroups
> as anything more than advice.
Like it or not, that's all they are now due to vote fraud and
increasingly convoluted voting mechanisms intended to prevent vote
fraud.
> If the Big 8 gets the reputation for creating groups with at most one
> person asking for them, and "on spec" at that, I don't know why we would
> expect ISPs to honor them.
Firstly, we could easily require proposals to be seconded or
thirded. But then we run into the same problems we have with voting
when Enzo Stromboli seconds Guido Stromboli's proposal, etc. Secondly,
we can't *expect* ISPs to honor our newgroups, we can only hope they
will do so, perhaps after we've earned their respect based upon our
track record.
> The checkgroups will either contain groups
> that are completely useless created without any pretense that they will
> be usefull,
No, the AB or whatever it's called will filter those out.
> or not contain groups that the ISPs users have found to
> be valuable even if the net as a whole hasn't, or both.
If that's our biggest worry, that'd be fine with me.
> If someone is saying to us "here, you control what my server carries", I
> think we own him more than "ok, let's experiment...".
We're still offering control, we're just not offering the level of
control we had in the past that has resulted in a nearly stagnant Big
8.
Dave Sill
> There are providers who won't remove groups. I'd like to see how
> group removal of the dead groups we already have, works before I'd be
> willing to commit to such a procedure.
There will always be providers who won't remove groups. That shouldn't
prevent us from issuing rmgroups when they're justified.
> We need some way to determine who will use a group and letting users
> express it in some sort of vote still seems the easiest,fairest way
> to measure. I simply don't trust any news groupie, myself included,
> to make this decision for a group of users.
Voting is neither easy nor fair due to fraud and antifraud
measures. It's also not a great indicator of future success. How, for
example, do "no" votes indicate a lack of desire for a group?
> How do we decide if it's plausible?
The AB (or whatever it's called) does that.
> Who decides the name?
The same people who decide then now: the proponent and news.groups.
> Let's just say I've been on the other side when news groupies told
> us how we should split our group and how we should name them. We
> were treated as clueless idiots and the bad feelings never were
> resolved in many cases.
And how does voting fix that?
> But will they use the group?
If it's plausible to the committee/board, then I don't think it
matters if the group doesn't succeed.
> I think we really have to at least make an educated guess at that at
> least until we do have a working removal system.
We have a working removal system--we just don't use it because we
don't have a policy covering it.
> I am afraid of a system that relieves the proponent of the
> task of promoting the group to potential users, IOW finding voters in
> the current system. Looking back at previous RFDs we see the reaction
> to a proponent of whom the affected group has never heard. That
> proponent may be "comfortable" with posting to news.groups but
> never talks to the affected users except for the posting of the RFD.
> Those users must have a voice in whether the group is formed.
Why? We have to get over the notion that existing groups are
sacred. Just because some existing group might have something in
common with a proposed new group doesn't mean the existing group
should be able to keep the new group from being created.
> Well, I'd like to see us avoid cluttering up the Big 8 with groups we
> have to worry about removing. Surely the providers who care about
> Usenet are not going to want to have to implement rmgroups every time
> they turn around.
Of course not, but it's not like rmgroups are urgent. Dead groups can
be cleaned up periodically at the news admin's convenience.
BarB
Stanley) wrote:
>
>The main problem it has is that, according to those who know about this
>kind of thing, rmgrouping is not automated as is newgrouping. It's easier
>to create a group, but when trying to remove it, it doesn't go away.
Exactly, removing a group seems to be extremely difficult for some
providers.
>
>Then we get a problem similar to the scrapbooking problem, where an
>officially removed group is carried on some servers and a happy little
>troup makes it their private little home, and when the popularity of
>that home is noticed and a decision to make the group official again
>appears, they get all pissed that someone is trying to take their group
>away from them.
>
Wasn't that fun though. :) On the other hand, I do understand the
frustration, anger toward someone you never heard of, who comes into
your group and announces he is going to make changes. Even if the
change is to its advantage, the group simply is not going to listen.
This is where an advisory board with some sort of authority ?? might
be able to keep things calmer. At least it could work out language
that might seem less paternalistic and domineering.
BarB
Wayne Brown
>
> Again to refer to four models. Under GWBig8Traditional and
> WBDictatorial, the advisors do nothing except some (presumably
> at-will) mentoring. Why shouldn't I wear a free feather in my
> cap? And I don't find either of those models *offensive*, as
> long as the WBDictatorial approach doesn't land us a rogue NAN
> moderator.
Assuming the "WBDictatorial" approach refers to my ideas, there's one
thing I'd like to make clear: My approach would not involve any sort of
"advisors," at least not in any formal or "official" capacity. One of
my biggest objections to all the things being proposed in news.groups
right now is the tremendous amount of legalese and procedural detail
being discussed. Under my plan, there would be no Advisory Board or
any other sort of board. There would be, in fact, only *one* official
position (other than that of the news admins, of course) and that would
be a single all-powerful NAN Moderator (let's call this person "XYZ").
The "Guidelines for Newsgroup Creation" would consist entirely of
something like this: "Users post what they want in news.groups, and
XYZ does as he/she sees fit."
There would be no other written rules, procedures or guidelines. If XYZ
wants to hold a vote, that's fine. If XYZ wants to gather consensus from
reading news.groups articles, that's fine. If XYZ wants to sit down with
a copy of the Library of Congress Subject Headings and just create a group
for every subject that looks worthwhile, and not even *read* news.groups,
that's fine. Especially, if XYZ wants to use a different method for every
new group that comes along, that's fine too. The point is that no one
needs to worry about policies or procedures, there's no "rules lawyering"
involved, and the whole process is streamlined into one simple reality:
Either you talk XYZ into doing what you want, or you don't.
As I've pointed out before, I don't especially *like* the current
voting system. It's just that it's been in place a long time, and
everyone's used to it, and it works well enough, and whatever replaces
it probably would be worse. So I'd rather keep it than replace it with
*another* big, complicated, "if A happens we do this, unless B happens,
in which case we do C and D, unless E happens, etc., etc." system,
which is exactly what Tim has proposed. Let's either throw away all
the red tape and bureaucratic nonsense altogether, or else keep the
red tape and bureaucratic nonsense we already have. But let's *not*
replace it with a whole new set.
One other thing: Under my system, there's no need to worry about a
"rogue NAN moderator," because whatever XYZ does is right, by definition.
--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwb...@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"
Joe Bernstein
Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
> > Again to refer to four models. Under GWBig8Traditional and
> > WBDictatorial, the advisors do nothing except some (presumably
> > at-will) mentoring. Why shouldn't I wear a free feather in my
> > cap? And I don't find either of those models *offensive*, as
> > long as the WBDictatorial approach doesn't land us a rogue NAN
> > moderator.
> Assuming the "WBDictatorial" approach refers to my ideas, there's one
> thing I'd like to make clear: My approach would not involve any sort of
> "advisors," at least not in any formal or "official" capacity.
Well, neither would Greg Woods's approach (and for that matter, although
I referred to "JBukCloned", I'm not actually backing an exact clone of
the uk.* system). Sorry if I irked you; I was trying to be equally
rude to everyone, though.
Thing is, though, we're being offered a setup in which to get *either*
your approach or the revival of the traditional system, we'd have to
have an advisory board first. Though it presumably would have the power
to vote itself out of existence, and it's not at all clear it would
have any other powers under those models.
(I also note that your apparent refusal to volunteer *for* the
advisory board means one less vote for what you're advocating, or
at least means one less candidate to vote that way, depending on
whether we in fact end up with elections. Just FYI.)
> the whole process is streamlined into one simple reality:
> Either you talk XYZ into doing what you want, or you don't.
> One other thing: Under my system, there's no need to worry about a
> "rogue NAN moderator," because whatever XYZ does is right, by definition.
Well, um. What I said was that your system is fine with me *as long as*
we don't end up with a NAN moderator who *isn't* fine with me. (To
give some idea, of NAN moderators to date, I'd be happiest probably
with Eliot Lear, then with the current bunch, and I'm not sure how to
compare tale with Greg Woods. Not that I'm trying to suggest that
any of these are available. But somewhere south of tale and Greg Woods
we get to flat-out "isn't fine with me". The 1984 Backbone Cabal is
probably not at all far from the dividing line, and I'm not sure on
which side.)
You can certainly define how your system judges the acts of the NAN
moderator (apparently, as always-right) but you don't get to define
how I judge them, no matter how much you define things.
Joe Bernstein
Dr John Stockton
2005 18:35:02, seen in news:news.groups, Todd Michel McComb
<mcc...@medieval.org> posted :
>In article <u7kdm1dn388jk3153...@4ax.com>,
>James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I volunteer.
>
>OK, noted.
>
>>I advocate transparency in the system.
>
>I'm not sure what this is.
You do not need to, since you are self-discredited as a Big-8 manager.
It's not the sort of concept that the Cabal would be expected to have
any experience of, though successful professional politicians pay it
assiduous lip-service.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Dr John Stockton
2005 07:45:03, seen in news:news.groups, Todd Michel McComb
<mcc...@medieval.org> posted :
>
>So why didn't you propose exactly the UK.* system? It doesn't
>violate any of my constraints, as far as I see it. If you did do
>that, it didn't come through to me, except in smaller phrases like
>the above, but then I can't possibly cast stones, since a lot of
>what I've been intending to say doesn't seem to be coming through
>to a lot of people.
A lot of people have no interest at all in anything that you might say,
except for pointing out its more glaring faults in the hope that you
will remember that there's no reason to consider yourself to be
competent to set up a new system.
The dominating need is to get a new Committee, independent of the old
cabal, and responsible to the world-wide user community; and to let it
and the electorate arrange everything else including the continuation
transmutation or replacement of that Committee.
>On that point, I'm going to have to rephrase the constraints to the
>Board, once we have a Board, and hopefully make it a lot simpler.
You're going to have to get out, and shut up, and the sooner that you
realise that and do that the better it will be for your mental health.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ???@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Food expiry ambiguities: <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/date2k-3.htm#Food>
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>In article <3130303032303...@foobar.zetnet.co.ok>,
>Jaques d'Alltrades <rusty...@foobar.zetnet.co.ok> wrote:
>>Sitting? Physical meeting? IRQ? Mailing List?
>
>Possibly a silly choice of words, mimicking various official bodies.
>
>I leave it up to the Board members how they want to discuss things.
>I would assume a combination of news.groups/n.a.n postings and
>mailing list.
Which is the way we do it in ott.*, where it does the job.
I've been contemplating volunteering for a week now, but I need one
question answered before making up my mind: Is there a perceived
conflict of interest if someone serving on a regional-hierarchy
administration group also serves on a Big-8 administration group?
--
Rob Kelk
Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
ott.* newsgroup charters: <http://onag.pinetree.org>
Todd Michel McComb
Rob Kelk <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>Is there a perceived conflict of interest if someone serving on a
>regional-hierarchy administration group also serves on a Big-8
>administration group?
Not from me, but obviously I can't speak for everyone.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Tim Skirvin
>I've been contemplating volunteering for a week now, but I need one
>question answered before making up my mind: Is there a perceived
>conflict of interest if someone serving on a regional-hierarchy
>administration group also serves on a Big-8 administration group?
Gods forbid we get someone with *experience* on the Committee!
(I see no conflict.)
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://news.killfile.org/ News<->Web Gateway
Joe Bernstein
appointed Speaker For All Creation has put his bit in, so I feel
obligated to make it clear he doesn't speak for me. And now that
I've done that, on to answering this.
In article <dk82hv$bno$1...@agricola.medieval.org>, Todd Michel McComb
<mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
> In article <dk7b98$lko$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
> >I can easily imagine that there'd be few enough candidates that
> >you could get 45% of those chosen unhappy with the system actually
> >picked.
>
> I suppose that's possible, although I'm not sure what few candidates
> has to do with it.
It's not clear to me how system-choosing is going to go. One
possibility, though I'm not at all sure it's likely, is that there
will be maybe, um, four major positions that candidates for the
Board identify themselves with; call 'em, just heuristically, um,
GWBig8Traditional, WBDictatorial, TSDoneDeal, and JBukCloned.
Now suppose there are fifteen candidates for the Board and it's
decided there are twelve positions. Then whether the Board is
chosen by election or appointment, only three of those candidates
will be eliminated. It's very likely indeed that several of the
survivors will turn out to hold minority views on what sort of
system should prevail.
On the other hand, if there are thirty candidates for those twelve
spots, then the odds are much higher that twelve people will be
chosen who more or less agree on a system, simply because there's
a better chance for any single 'party' even to *have* twelve
candidates. (And any 'party' of twelve in a field of thirty is
likely to reflect broader support, *and* to attract a certain amount
of support just on the premise that agreement is a good thing.)
> >Under JBukCloned, I've won.
> So why didn't you propose exactly the UK.* system?
Um, because I'm a news.groups regular and conditioned to see nothing
as perfect, maybe?
Anyway, no, that isn't the real reason (though I would not, in fact,
see proposing +12 as a Good Thing for the Big 8 at this time). The
real reason is that I'd tried to write that post at noon only to be
told by my computer that a previously totally inoffensive telnet
program had managed to crash it; I'd then around 5 PM run a series
of hard drive checks and such, with no plausible explanation for the
problem emerging; and finally around midnight I got up the guts to
try again. All of this in between four trips that day to close two
storage units. I was too *tired* to edit the uk.* documents down to
text that would fit the kind of post I was posting, or even to
check the post against the documents.
In any event. As I said two posts back on my side of this conversation,
cloning uk.* is the *closest*, of the four options I've been using as
an example set, to what I want. That doesn't mean I like everything
they do just because they do it. The main reason I like them at all
(in this context) is that their system is clearly *based* on ours, so
it's possible to assess in some detail what of ours can and should be
saved and what not; I also like the fact that one of their biggest
differences from us is a direct solution to the voter apathy problem,
which remains the stated reason for this whole effort. Less urgently
or importantly, I like uk.*'s use of odd voting systems, its more
organised approach to namespace, and (more hesitantly) its elections
on committee members and guidelines changes; but you'll note that I put
only some of this stuff even into my pre-proposal. I don't think we're
here to implement Joe Bernstein's Christmas tree wishlist of cool toys
for news.groups regulars; I'd *like* to focus on things that seem
likely to solve the problems at hand.
> On that point, I'm going to have to rephrase the constraints to the
> Board, once we have a Board, and hopefully make it a lot simpler.
? (I'm going to have to go back and re-read the announcement. I
don't get either this or the more fully stated version in your
subsequent announcement.)
James Farrar
McComb) wrote:
>In article <u7kdm1dn388jk3153...@4ax.com>,
>James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I advocate transparency in the system.
>
>I'm not sure what this is.
Having a system that's totally clear to everyone how it operates.
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
Todd Michel McComb
Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>Sigh, I'd been planning to put off answering this, but now I see
>I feel obligated to make it clear he doesn't speak for me.
Heh, I don't know why you'd feel obligated over that.
TMM
Russ Allbery
> Having a system that's totally clear to everyone how it operates.
Man, good luck with that. Seriously. It's a lot harder than it sounds.
That was my original intent in writing the new Guidelines, and I have to
say that it pretty much failed entirely (as did my attempt to keep the
total length under 200 lines). I'd love to see someone else do a better
job.
Todd Michel McComb
James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Having a system that's totally clear to everyone how it operates.
Ah, well, that's a good goal. Maybe you can pull it off. -TMM
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>In article <anpfm11i3gsmg3nkd...@4ax.com>,
Thanks. However, I'm going to have to refrain from volunteering; my
blood pressure is making itself known again, and I just can't stay
sufficiently calm about something that I care this much about.
I hope I'll still be allowed to offer my views, but it's up to the admin
group whether they want to listen...
Todd Michel McComb
K. A. Cannon <kaca...@insurgent.orgy> wrote:
>I therefore volunteer...
OK, noted.
BarB
<MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov> wrote:
>
>Voting is neither easy nor fair due to fraud and antifraud
>measures.
Which is why a vote result should perhaps not be the final
determinate of group success or failure but rather a poll to guide
the NAN team.
>It's also not a great indicator of future success.
Not always, but it's all we have to go on.
>How, for example, do "no" votes indicate a lack of desire for a group?
No votes don't mean lack of desire. They can mean "bad for Usenet'.
Remember the rec.food.cooking.vegetables group?
>> How do we decide if it's plausible?
>
>The AB (or whatever it's called) does that.
>
And how do they determine plausibility if they aren't familiar with
the topic? The only people who can determine plausibility are users
of the related groups. If a proponent hasn't been able to attract
them to his proposed group, I doubt if it will succeed.
>> Who decides the name?
>
>The same people who decide then now: the proponent and news.groups.
Which disenfranchises the long-term user who may have invested years
in the affected groups.
>
>> Let's just say I've been on the other side when news groupies told
>> us how we should split our group and how we should name them. We
>> were treated as clueless idiots and the bad feelings never were
>> resolved in many cases.
>
>And how does voting fix that?
It gives a voice to the people who are much more important than the
proponent, the long-term users of the affected groups.
>
>> But will they use the group?
>
>If it's plausible to the committee/board, then I don't think it
>matters if the group doesn't succeed.
The determination of plausibility will not be an easy task IMO
without vote info. If we don't care if a group succeeds or not, then
what are we doing here?
>
>> I think we really have to at least make an educated guess at that at
>> least until we do have a working removal system.
>
>We have a working removal system--we just don't use it because we
>don't have a policy covering it.
An unused system is not working. :)
>
>> I am afraid of a system that relieves the proponent of the
>> task of promoting the group to potential users, IOW finding voters in
>> the current system. Looking back at previous RFDs we see the reaction
>> to a proponent of whom the affected group has never heard. That
>> proponent may be "comfortable" with posting to news.groups but
>> never talks to the affected users except for the posting of the RFD.
>> Those users must have a voice in whether the group is formed.
>
>Why? We have to get over the notion that existing groups are
>sacred. Just because some existing group might have something in
>common with a proposed new group doesn't mean the existing group
>should be able to keep the new group from being created.
What we want to measure is potential use of a group. Our sole purpose
is to assure providers, " news.groups has determined that a number of
your users will want you to carry this group". If, for whatever
reason, the proponent is unable to convince a number of users to
subscribe to the new group, it is not likely to succeed. I don't
think we want to tell providers, " we have no idea if this group is
going to be successful but add it anyway and we'll tell you to remove
it later if it gets no traffic."
>> Well, I'd like to see us avoid cluttering up the Big 8 with groups we
>> have to worry about removing. Surely the providers who care about
>> Usenet are not going to want to have to implement rmgroups every time
>> they turn around.
>
>Of course not, but it's not like rmgroups are urgent. Dead groups can
>be cleaned up periodically at the news admin's convenience.
Unfortunately it seems there is no time that it's convenient for news
admins. I haven't seen a single one I know posting here by the way.
BarB
--
pat...@earthlink.net, moderation board, news:news.newusers.questions
Create New Groups .. http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
Create New Alt Newsgroups ......... ............ http://alt.nylon.net
Henrietta K Thomas
<rob...@deadspam.com> wrote:
<...>
>I've been contemplating volunteering for a week now, but I need one
>question answered before making up my mind: Is there a perceived
>conflict of interest if someone serving on a regional-hierarchy
>administration group also serves on a Big-8 administration group?
In my mind, yes, and that's why I'm /not/ volunteering to serve on the
Big 8 Board.
Henrietta
--
Unless stated otherwise, the opinions expressed in
this article are mine alone, and do not represent
official policy of the us.* hierarchy. For information
about the us.* hierarchy, see the us.* website at
http://www.usenetnews.us;
Dave Sill
> In article <wx07jbs...@sws5.ornl.gov>,
> Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov> wrote:
>>Yes, that's the current state of affairs, and a problem that should be
>>addressed. There's no reason that Big 8 rmgroups couldn't be
>>automatically accepted, just like Big 8 newgroups.
>
> You're speaking for an awful lot of people, here. If there truly were
> no reason, it would have happened by now. Apparently there is a
> reason.
I'm not speaking for anyone but myself.
Let me spell it out for you, John: news servers provide a mechanism
for automatically applying certain control messages in certain
hierarchies. It's fairly common for sites to automatically apply Big 8
newgroups. If the Big 8 had a published policy for issuing rmgroups,
site admins might be more likely to apply them automatically, too.
>>If a news admin chooses not to accept our advice regarding
>>rmgroups and doesn't periodically apply checkgroups and ends up with
>>lots of dead newsgroups on their server, that's their decision. We can
>>only offer our advice--not force anyone to accept it.
>
> What you say is true. It still does not mean we ought to pretend that
> it is a Good Thing, or that it would be a Good Thing to create groups
> with no idea whether they'll be successful or not with the idea what
> we'll just remove it with no consequences later.
Nor is it necessarily a Bad Thing. It's a Different Thing, and we're
at a point where the Current Thing has become obviously broken, so
it's a good time to consider alternatives--even bold ones.
Sure we could keep the current system running, after a fashion, by
applying various fixes. That would certainly be the safe, comfortable
thing to do. Or we could build a new system based upon what we've
learned over the course of Usenet history and what we know about the
current state of Usenet and the Internet.
Dave Sill
> In article <wx03bmg...@sws5.ornl.gov>,
> Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov> wrote:
>>sta...@shell.peak.org (John Stanley) writes:
>>
>>> The problem is more basic than that set of complaints. You also wind up
>>> with a highly fragmented USENET where a user may need to find more than
>>> one server to be able to read all the groups they want.
>>
>>There's nothing preventing that now other than the lack of an
>>effective mechanism for removing groups
>
> The mechanism is called "rmgroup". It's been in the standards for a long
> time. If that method is ineffective, it's because people have chosen not
> to honor that control message, and they've probably done so for a
> reason.
No, rmgroup is not a Big 8 policy for removing dead groups, it's the
low-level tool by which that policy would be implemented.
>>and a too-high hurdle that's
>>currently out-of-order for creating new groups.
>
> The hurdles for creating new groups has nothing to do with the rmgroup
> control message.
Try to pay attention, John. I was explaining what I think prevents the
"highly fragmented USENET" you referred to above. The Big 8 is
cohesive and consistent now because it's stagnant. I'd risk a little
fragmentation to have growing and changing Big 8--but I really don't
see how making groups easier to create and delete will necessarily
lead to fragmentation.
>>Rogue admins have
>>always been able to ignore Big 8 control messages, and that's not
>>going to change as a result of anything we do.
>
> I don't know anyone who would call an admin that hasn't automated rmgroups
> a "rogue". Applying negative labels to them isn't going to make them
> more likely to follow your lead, you know.
I don't consider admins who don't automate rmgroups rogue. I don't
consider admins who don't automate newgroups rogue, either. *I* don't
automate either at ORNL, primarily because we carry a pretty limited
set of newsgroups relevent to the work we do here. Rogue admins, in my
opinion, are simply those who do whatever they want, regardless of the
policies of the hierarchies they carry. E.g., carrying moderated
groups as unmoderated, refusing to remove invalid groups such as those
created by fraud or forgery, etc.
>>Yes, but in practice we've created groups that have failed, and have
>>failed to create groups that are obviously needed.
>
> Should the fear of that happening stop us from using a system that has at
> least some apparent basis in demonstrated interest, abandoning it instead
> for an experiment in group creation at the simple request of one person?
Quite possibly, given the demonstrated problems with the current
system.
> So creating groups willy-nilly with the expectation that we can simply
> remove them later without consequences is better, how?
For the N+1th time, I'm not suggesting that we create groups
frivolously--just that we don't need the formal/cumbersome/lengthy/
obstructive RFD/CFV process. Groups can be proposed and debated/
discussed on news.groups as they always have been. At the point where
a proposal currently goes to a vote or consensus is reached (as
determined by the cabal), the newgroup would be issued.
>>But this group wouldn't have to go through the rigamarole of the
>>current RFD/CFV process to filter out nuisance new group requests.
>
> Define the difference between "nuisance" and "real". Objective, please.
I can't do that, but I don't think the cabal will have any trouble
distinguishing them.
>>Firstly, we could easily require proposals to be seconded or
>>thirded.
>
> Wow, a whole two or three people who ask, instead of just one. Or one
> person asking three times under different names. Big difference.
Yes, much better to conduct an official-looking vote where one or two
people can stuff the ballot box just as easily. Because we don't
really care about predetermining interest, we just want to put on a
good show so admins will honor our control messages and prevent the
dreaded Highly Fragmented Usenet. :rolleyes:
Dave Sill
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:37:36 -0500, Dave Sill
> <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>Voting is neither easy nor fair due to fraud and antifraud
>>measures.
>
> Which is why a vote result should perhaps not be the final
> determinate of group success or failure but rather a poll to guide
> the NAN team.
Sounds like you want the worst of both approaches: the hassles of
voting without the "guarantee" that votes matter.
>>It's also not a great indicator of future success.
>
> Not always, but it's all we have to go on.
No it's not. We have pretty good abilities to pick out obvious winners
and losers. It was clear that comp.databases.mysql was at least a
potential winner without (and despite) the vote results. The tragedy
isn't that the NAN mods created it despite the failing vote--it's that
it took so long to create it that most folks seeking mysql information
went elsewhere and used more responsive media like mailing lists and
web forums.
>>> How do we decide if it's plausible?
>>
>>The AB (or whatever it's called) does that.
>>
> And how do they determine plausibility if they aren't familiar with
> the topic? The only people who can determine plausibility are users
> of the related groups. If a proponent hasn't been able to attract
> them to his proposed group, I doubt if it will succeed.
So are we going to only allow people familiar with a topic to vote on
proposals? What if the knowledgeable voters vote the opposite of the
ignorant majority? Does that make the knowledgeable voters wrong?
>>> Who decides the name?
>>
>>The same people who decide then now: the proponent and news.groups.
>
> Which disenfranchises the long-term user who may have invested years
> in the affected groups.
It's just a newsgroup, for Pete's sake. It's not a God-given right,
guaranteed to be preserved for eternity. Get over it. If a new group
comes along that messes up your little party, that's just too bad.
>>> Let's just say I've been on the other side when news groupies told
>>> us how we should split our group and how we should name them. We
>>> were treated as clueless idiots and the bad feelings never were
>>> resolved in many cases.
>>
>>And how does voting fix that?
>
> It gives a voice to the people who are much more important than the
> proponent, the long-term users of the affected groups.
Everyone's got a voice in news.groups.
> The determination of plausibility will not be an easy task IMO
> without vote info.
I think it'll be pretty easy.
> If we don't care if a group succeeds or not, then what are we doing
> here?
Trying to come up with a policy framework for managine the Big 8
hierarchies. Sure, we'd like all groups to succeed. We'd also like
world peace, clean air and water, a cure for cancer, etc. A newsgroup
that doesn't succeed isn't a tragedy, it's an empty directory on a few
thousand systems. BFD.
>>We have a working removal system--we just don't use it because we
>>don't have a policy covering it.
>
> An unused system is not working. :)
All we need is a group removal policy.
> What we want to measure is potential use of a group. Our sole purpose
> is to assure providers, " news.groups has determined that a number of
> your users will want you to carry this group". If, for whatever
> reason, the proponent is unable to convince a number of users to
> subscribe to the new group, it is not likely to succeed.
Groups don't succeed or fail because the proponent is successful or
not in recruiting subscribers. Groups succeed if they fill a niche and
fail if there's not sufficient interest.
> I don't think we want to tell providers, " we have no idea if this
> group is going to be successful but add it anyway and we'll tell you
> to remove it later if it gets no traffic."
I don't have a problem with saying: "we can't guarantee that this
group will succeed, but we have reason to believe that sufficient
interest exists and that the group is appropriately named".
>>Of course not, but it's not like rmgroups are urgent. Dead groups can
>>be cleaned up periodically at the news admin's convenience.
>
> Unfortunately it seems there is no time that it's convenient for news
> admins. I haven't seen a single one I know posting here by the way.
I'm one, not that you know me. It's really not time consuming. A
well-run server pretty much runs itself. A couple times a week I look
at the list of pending control messages and act on those that meet our
local needs.
Wayne Brown
> In article <4VO9f.26767$NJ.1...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>
>> > Again to refer to four models. Under GWBig8Traditional and
>> > WBDictatorial, the advisors do nothing except some (presumably
>> > at-will) mentoring. Why shouldn't I wear a free feather in my
>> > cap? And I don't find either of those models *offensive*, as
>> > long as the WBDictatorial approach doesn't land us a rogue NAN
>> > moderator.
>
>> Assuming the "WBDictatorial" approach refers to my ideas, there's one
>> thing I'd like to make clear: My approach would not involve any sort of
>> "advisors," at least not in any formal or "official" capacity.
>
> Well, neither would Greg Woods's approach (and for that matter, although
> I referred to "JBukCloned", I'm not actually backing an exact clone of
> the uk.* system). Sorry if I irked you; I was trying to be equally
> rude to everyone, though.
Nope, not irked, just making certain it was clear.
> Thing is, though, we're being offered a setup in which to get *either*
> your approach or the revival of the traditional system, we'd have to
> have an advisory board first. Though it presumably would have the power
> to vote itself out of existence, and it's not at all clear it would
> have any other powers under those models.
I know what's been offered; that's why I'm complaining. I've already
said that I *won't* participate in the approach that's been offered,
even if it would get me what I want in the long run. The ends don't
justify the means.
> (I also note that your apparent refusal to volunteer *for* the
> advisory board means one less vote for what you're advocating, or
> at least means one less candidate to vote that way, depending on
> whether we in fact end up with elections. Just FYI.)
It would be a bit inconsistent for me to volunteer for an advisory board
position based on the belief that an advisory board ought not to exist.
The whole point of what I'm saying is that I don't want *any* system
that's selected by users voting for it, or decided by any sort of
advisory board. I want a completely authoritarian system imposed on us
from above by the admins, not selected from below by the users.
>
>> the whole process is streamlined into one simple reality:
>> Either you talk XYZ into doing what you want, or you don't.
>
>> One other thing: Under my system, there's no need to worry about a
>> "rogue NAN moderator," because whatever XYZ does is right, by definition.
>
> Well, um. What I said was that your system is fine with me *as long as*
> we don't end up with a NAN moderator who *isn't* fine with me. (To
> give some idea, of NAN moderators to date, I'd be happiest probably
> with Eliot Lear, then with the current bunch, and I'm not sure how to
> compare tale with Greg Woods. Not that I'm trying to suggest that
> any of these are available. But somewhere south of tale and Greg Woods
> we get to flat-out "isn't fine with me". The 1984 Backbone Cabal is
> probably not at all far from the dividing line, and I'm not sure on
> which side.)
I think you already know that my choice would be Gene Spafford, who,
I'm afraid, also would not be available. I'd be satisfied if the
admins got together and selected someone and didn't tell us who it was
or give us any way to contact him/her except by posting in news.groups.
(Maybe then it could be Spaf operating anonymously in the background. :-)
> You can certainly define how your system judges the acts of the NAN
> moderator (apparently, as always-right) but you don't get to define
> how I judge them, no matter how much you define things.
What I'd like is a system that makes anyone's judgment about the acts
of the NAN moderator -- yours, mine, anyone's -- irrelevant.
Dr John Stockton
16:21:08, seen in news:news.groups, NAN Team <newgroup...@isc.org>
posted :
By posting to four newsgroups, one being inappropriate and one being
*AFAIK* unnecessary, you have arranged that your article will not be
seen by users who have decided that anything above three cross-posts is
generally spam.
>Either by next Monday, or when self-nominations slow to a trickle,
If you have set a closing date, you should stick to it.
>I will post to n.a.n a list of volunteers for discussion. Then we
>will go from there, hopefully to convene a sitting Board in a
>reasonable period of time, but at least two weeks from now.
A Board composed of everyone who volunteers will include an unreasonable
proportion of those who seek to gain power rather than to be of service
- it will contain numbers of news-nerds resembling the discredited
Cabal, and probably some out-and-out kooks too. Volunteering is a
necessary but not a sufficient criterion - consider the PC situation!
The discussion is unlikely to clarify matters greatly. In particular,
if an evidently acceptable point is well-put in a discussion it will
tend not to be repeated, but will be numerically under-represented. And
if a point is badly put or evidently unacceptable its refutation, if
any, will be under-represented.
That implies that the Board will be chosen by the Exalted Ones.
Since the Cabal is discredited, it is manifestly wrong that it should
select members for a Board. The Cabal should do no more than run RFDs
and CFVs respecting previous convention until an elected operating
committee can take over.
Since you and your methods are discredited, you limit the possible
volunteers to those who are willing to help initiate a pre-tainted
system.
Even the name "Board" is unwise; the term is pretentious, and it is
well-known that a Board is long, hard, and made of wood.
One way of obtaining a more nearly representative preliminary Committee
would be to ask not for volunteers but for nominations; to be
acceptable, a person would need say twelve nominations with no
individual allowed to nominate more than two candidates. Obviously
people would be allowed to ask for nominators, or to say that they don't
want to serve; but getting a dozen nominators would serve as an
indication of a modicum of acceptability.
If you cannot trust the judgement of the users, why should the users
trust yours?
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
The Big-8 newsgroup management is attempting to legitimise its questionable
practices while retaining its elitist hegemony. Read <URL:news:news.groups>.
Leo G Simonetta
(NAN Team) wrote:
>
> In Message-ID: <11297405...@isc.org>, I outlined a plan to
> hand control of the Big-8 group list to a publicly-selected Board.
>
> Now it is time to ask for volunteers to serve on the preliminary/initial
> Board.
As a long time observer and member of the news.group peanut
gallery I volunteer.
I am not entirely certain what I think is the best idea as a
method to decide which groups to create which is why I have been
(uncharacteristically) quiet.
--
Leo G. Simonetta
lsimo...@newsguy.com
Life-Member Self-Appointed, Curmudgeonly Defenders of Usenet
Todd Michel McComb
Leo G Simonetta <lsimo...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>As a long time observer and member of the news.group peanut
>gallery I volunteer.
OK, noted. --TMM
Adam H. Kerman
>Now it is time to ask for volunteers to serve on the preliminary/initial
>Board. This Board will be charged with determining, in part:
>o Its terms, and how to hold elections.
>o Its officers/executives, and their function.
>o What sort of procedure it wants to use for creating/removing groups.
>o The various bylaws of how such a thing will work.
>o The order in which it wants to accomplish these tasks.
>o For that matter, its name, which was originally given as "Advisory
> Board."
"Advisory Board" is a fine name, but this should be intended as an ad hoc
committee to be replaced with something else with a proper name for a
permanent body.
Let's not call people "officers" and "executives". Giving out corporate
titles just isn't in the spirit of Usenet. "chief electron officer"
indeed.
>In order to have a Big-8 creation/removal system, we need people
>who are willing to volunteer some of their time to create and
>supervise the system. If there aren't enough people, there will
>be no system.
Oy vey. The system, the system, the system...
I am not going to volunteer to serve the needs of the system. The system
just is. It doesn't appear that lessons have been learned from the fiasco
of the MySQL proposal, and it looks like we are about to embark on a
circular course, ending up right where we started from a year from now,
but with rewritten organic documents.
I might volunteer for something else entirely. If we were to address, What
is in the best interest of discussing Topic A on Usenet? How do we set up
a system in which procedures don't impede someone (better yet, a group of
someones) known for discussing the topic from stepping forward,
identifying an audience for the topic, making a reasonable judgment that a
new group is warranted and would enhance discussion? How do we then
encourage said person to promote the group among the identified audience
and stick with the group for many months after the newgroup was sent to
make sure that "discussion happens" and News administrators slow to
process the newgroup are nagged sufficiently to get the group created?
Over the long run, I don't think a single Group Mentors-like body is going
to cut it, not for all potential topics that might warrant Big 8 groups.
Neutral on the worthiness of a topic for a new group won't cut it. I think
what is necessary are self-identified bodies of Topic Caretakers. We need
partisans, people who actively participate in discussion and whose
judgement should be considered when proposals are made. People who have a
vested interest in helping guide a proponent, if not kicking butt. People
who will be there to participate in finding the audience and posting to
the new group.
The fundamental need to address is, What will improve discussion on
Usenet? Next, design a system to meet that need.
Instead, it appears that we've entered "system preservation mode" for the
next period.
>The following people have explicitly volunteered: Brian Edmonds, Tim
>Skirvin, and Ru Igarashi. These people have all contributed notably to
>Usenet over the years. Brian and Tim have also expressed their
>willingness to serve as Board officers/executives.
I have no objection to any of these folks serving on an ad hoc committee,
and they might make fine hierarchy administrators a year from now. (I am
going to continue to call the team that replaces the NAN Team "hierarchy
administrators" as that's the proper term, and executive board is simply
wrong. Pretending the Big 8 is comparable to a corporate entity of any
kind isn't helpful.)
But I have strong objections to any of them serving on whatever the entity
will be named that succeeds the Advisory Board.
What is needed in the long run is a representative body of News
administrators who are willing to advise whether the hierarchy
administrators are meeting their needs and serving their users' interests.
Hierarchy governance should not be considered to be acting in the direct
interests of users, but only indirectly on their behalf. Hierarchy
governance should be considered to be acting directly on behalf of News
administrators.
>Other people have mentioned a willingness to serve as well, but either I
>did not understand them, or they were a little hesitant, and so haven't
>been listed here. I'd name the people whom I _think_ are interested, but
>that seems potentially unfair to them. It's not that I don't want you,
>so please say so definitively.
In that case, I'm going to be completely unfair and name BarB to the
panel, someone who has no shortage of common sense and is willing to
share. She's unflappable, has a good sense of humor, and ignores vile
nonsense spewed at her when she's willing to help.
For the record, she should be chairman of the committee because she's
capable of identifying clear objectives and will keep the technical guys
from going off track.
>I also want to ask explicitly that one or more people with experience
>on the UK.* Council volunteer for this preliminary/initial Board,
>in order to help get things off the ground.
Great idea.
Adam H. Kerman
>BarB <pat...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>newgroup...@isc.org (NAN Team) wrote:
>>>o If you want people who will ask for public vote on all/most new
>>> rules, then lobby/vote for people who want to do this.
>>That's probably closest to where I am at the moment since I haven't
>>seen anyone suggest any other way to determine new group usage.
>I have: create the proposed group and see if it succeeds. If it
>doesn't, remove it.
That might work in a world in which all News administrators who should are
actually processing control messages within a reasonable period of time
after issuance. As we don't live in such a world, the net result will be a
Big 8 that mimicks what's bad about alt.
Too few News administrators processing control messages IS one of those
fundamental problems that needs to be addressed.
Adam H. Kerman
>To what degree we should concern ourselves with ISPs that don't apply
>checkgroups, though, is a harder question.
Then why have hierarchy administration?
The issuance of checkgroups shouldn't be the sound of one hand clapping.
David Bostwick
[...]
>
>Let's not call people "officers" and "executives". Giving out corporate
>titles just isn't in the spirit of Usenet. "chief electron officer"
>indeed.
>
I missed the article Adam's referring to, so I'm not sure if this is a typo,
but I *like* "chief electron officer."
Otaku
> BarB <pat...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>
>>On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:32:39 -0800, newgroup...@isc.org (NAN
>>Team) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>o If you want people who will ask for public vote on all/most new
>>> rules, then lobby/vote for people who want to do this.
>>
>>That's probably closest to where I am at the moment since I haven't
>>seen anyone suggest any other way to determine new group usage.
>
>
> I have: create the proposed group and see if it succeeds. If it
> doesn't, remove it.
>
> the ballot box, people find the voting process too cumbersome, the
> popularity of groups waxes and wanes and sometimes groups die. It's
> just not possible to accurately predict a prospective group's
> long-term viability.
>
> So why bother? Why not newgroup all plausible proposed groups once a
> name is decided and let The People cast the only vote that really
> matters by either using the group or not? Any stillborn,
> flash-in-the-pan, or simply obsolete groups should be reaped by an
> automatic dead group removal process.
>
> BTW, since I haven't seen unequivocal acknowledgment: I hereby
> volunteer.
>
This is the closest idea I've seen to the way I would like to have the
hierarchy managed. If we can't get rmgroups to work, then we really can't
manage the namespace - if we can get them to work, then there is no good
reason not to create groups on a provisional basis.
I, also, volunteer.
--
©2005 Otaku (at) troll4fun (dot) com
Otaku
<mucho snippo>
>>Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov> wrote:
>>So creating groups willy-nilly with the expectation that we can simply
>>remove them later without consequences is better, how?
>
>
> For the N+1th time, I'm not suggesting that we create groups
> frivolously--just that we don't need the formal/cumbersome/lengthy/
> obstructive RFD/CFV process. Groups can be proposed and debated/
> discussed on news.groups as they always have been. At the point where
> a proposal currently goes to a vote or consensus is reached (as
> determined by the cabal), the newgroup would be issued.
>
them after 6 months or so, and see if they have "sufficient" on-topic
usage to justify their continued existance. If not, rmgroup them.
Todd Michel McComb
Otaku <Ot...@troll4fun.com> wrote:
>I, also, volunteer.
OK, noted.
I just want to add that if this is buried down into a post, I might
not notice.
TMM
Otaku
<much snipped>
>
> Over the long run, I don't think a single Group Mentors-like body is going
> to cut it, not for all potential topics that might warrant Big 8 groups.
> Neutral on the worthiness of a topic for a new group won't cut it. I think
> what is necessary are self-identified bodies of Topic Caretakers. We need
> partisans, people who actively participate in discussion and whose
> judgement should be considered when proposals are made. People who have a
> vested interest in helping guide a proponent, if not kicking butt. People
> who will be there to participate in finding the audience and posting to
> the new group.
>
who want|choose to participate in the management of comp.*, sci.*, etc.
can be presumed to be a bit more knowledgable in those content areas than
any random Usenet user. For example, I would be very comfortable as part
of a management team for comp.*, somewhat less so for sci.* and/or
news.*, and not at all for soc.*, humanities.*, talk.*, rec.* or misc.*.
In addition, creating autonomous hierarchies would allow for some
experimentation in methods for deciding which potential newsgroups might
be useful vs. those which would not.
> The fundamental need to address is, What will improve discussion on
> Usenet? Next, design a system to meet that need.
>
> Instead, it appears that we've entered "system preservation mode" for the
> next period.
>
I think we need to both preserve the system (which has served us well for
many years now) and search for new ways to keep Usenet relevant into the
future. I agree with what Russ and others have expressed here before,
that one of the salient features of Usenet is the sense of community
which develops among group regulars - and that other forms of discussion
media (web boards, IRC, mailing lists, etc.) do not provide that sense in
the same way (of course, there are communities which arise with all those
media, but it seems to me that they are, in some sense I can't really
define, different).
>
<more snippage>
>
> What is needed in the long run is a representative body of News
> administrators who are willing to advise whether the hierarchy
> administrators are meeting their needs and serving their users' interests.
>
> Hierarchy governance should not be considered to be acting in the direct
> interests of users, but only indirectly on their behalf. Hierarchy
> governance should be considered to be acting directly on behalf of News
> administrators.
>
I agree completely with these two statements.
--
Š 2005 Otaku (at) troll4fun (dot) com
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
you would not hear of that party again in our political
history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you
can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his
background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional
politician or business man from other areas. Their number is
negligible and they are stupid.
-- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower
November 8, 1954
Russ Allbery
> At 8:27am -0800, 11/01/05, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> To what degree we should concern ourselves with ISPs that don't apply
>> checkgroups, though, is a harder question.
> Then why have hierarchy administration?
For those sites that *do* honor checkgroups.
> The issuance of checkgroups shouldn't be the sound of one hand clapping.
Certainly. But plenty of sites do honor them. If we reached the point
where no one did, then we should indeed just all quit, but we're clearly
not at that point right now.
BowTie
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> <much snipped>
>> Over the long run, I don't think a single Group Mentors-like body is going
>> to cut it, not for all potential topics that might warrant Big 8 groups.
>> Neutral on the worthiness of a topic for a new group won't cut it. I think
>> what is necessary are self-identified bodies of Topic Caretakers. We need
>> partisans, people who actively participate in discussion and whose
>> judgement should be considered when proposals are made. People who have a
>> vested interest in helping guide a proponent, if not kicking butt. People
>> who will be there to participate in finding the audience and posting to
>> the new group.
> This is basically why I propose creating autonomous hierarchies. Those
> who want|choose to participate in the management of comp.*, sci.*, etc.
> can be presumed to be a bit more knowledgable in those content areas than
> any random Usenet user. For example, I would be very comfortable as part
> of a management team for comp.*, somewhat less so for sci.* and/or
> news.*, and not at all for soc.*, humanities.*, talk.*, rec.* or misc.*.
> In addition, creating autonomous hierarchies would allow for some
> experimentation in methods for deciding which potential newsgroups might
> be useful vs. those which would not.
*oh my*, let the 8 flowers bloom!
reminds me of the baby Bells
Let's get some name space competition, by potential suiting hierarchies.
Hierarchy admins should have a heavy say in newsgroups within their domain.
Maybe these folks would like to participate on respective mentor teams?
>> The fundamental need to address is, What will improve discussion on
>> Usenet? Next, design a system to meet that need.
>> Instead, it appears that we've entered "system preservation mode" for the
>> next period.
> I think we need to both preserve the system (which has served us well for
> many years now) and search for new ways to keep Usenet relevant into the
> future. I agree with what Russ and others have expressed here before,
> that one of the salient features of Usenet is the sense of community
> which develops among group regulars - and that other forms of discussion
> media (web boards, IRC, mailing lists, etc.) do not provide that sense in
> the same way (of course, there are communities which arise with all those
> media, but it seems to me that they are, in some sense I can't really
> define, different).
Usenet should shine at this!
Unfortunately, thoese that don't own servers have been scoffed at :(
> <more snippage>
>> What is needed in the long run is a representative body of News
>> administrators who are willing to advise whether the hierarchy
>> administrators are meeting their needs and serving their users' interests.
>>
>> Hierarchy governance should not be considered to be acting in the direct
>> interests of users, but only indirectly on their behalf. Hierarchy
>> governance should be considered to be acting directly on behalf of News
>> administrators.
> I agree completely with these two statements.
yes b u t,
they need to converge the 2 interests with equal weight
:)x
Joe Bernstein
<sta...@shell.peak.org> wrote:
> In article <wx0br13...@sws5.ornl.gov>,
> Dave Sill <MaxFr...@sws5.ornl.gov> wrote:
> >news servers provide a mechanism
> >for automatically applying certain control messages in certain
> >hierarchies. It's fairly common for sites to automatically apply Big 8
> >newgroups. If the Big 8 had a published policy for issuing rmgroups,
> >site admins might be more likely to apply them automatically, too.
> So then, you do know of a reason why they aren't automated -- no published
> policy about when they are issued. I suspect that there are other reasons.
> More serious consequences from abuse, for example, or admins not wanting
> localized successful groups being removed from their users just because
> someone somewhere else decided that N wasn't enough use and the group
> should go away.
You two share a flaw in your arguments, but that flaw damages Dave
Sill's argument far more than it does John Stanley's.
Many sites don't have admins in the sense you two are using the term.
I'm not sure how *important* this fact is. It's possible that nowadays
enough users are concentrated at sites where either there are real
live admins, or there is an automated policy of matching the Big 8
official list, that the sites without admins are trivial. But I
suspect we aren't quite there yet, and I certainly don't know we are.
Anyway, though, at sites without news-admins, the odds of anyone
who is asked to act on a particular newgroup or rmgroup actually
being familiar with Big 8 policies are, well, remote. So I'd be
pretty shocked if such sites would start honouring rmgroups the minute
we had a formal procedure for issuing them (particularly since we *do*
have a formal procedure for issuing them already, and have had for
well over a decade). It's true that they might have policies against
rmgroups because of concerns about abuse, and it's true that for any
given dead-group removal, there could be some number of sites where
users actually read the dead group. (This number in fact could be
higher than the number of protests needed to keep a dead group alive,
or the number of posts in a year, for obvious reasons.)
But frankly, y'all aren't talking about the *main* reason news
servers left to run themselves don't honour rmgroups: their owners
tend to see the size of the active file as a kind of electronic
equivalent of the size of the corporate bicep, breast, or cock
(choose one). They even tend to advertise it. ("The only ISP
in Lower Slobovia with FIVE MILLION NEWSGROUPS!!!") Rmgroups of
any kind run counter to their primary interest in Usenet, which
is as a way of winning a numerical pissing contest.
I concede that there are sites with admins who don't follow the Big 8's
rmgroup recommendations, and in those cases John Stanley's suggested
reasons strike me as considerably likelier than Dave Sill's implied
one, for reasons already stated.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/> "She suited my mood, Sarah Mondleigh
did - it was like having a kitten in the room, like a vote for unreason."
<Glass Mountain>, Cynthia Voigt
Joe Bernstein
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> At 7:32am -0800, 10/31/05, NAN Team <newgroup...@isc.org> wrote:
[things the committee should figure out]
> >o For that matter, its name, which was originally given as "Advisory
> > Board."
> "Advisory Board" is a fine name, but this should be intended as an ad hoc
> committee to be replaced with something else with a proper name for a
> permanent body.
Kinda depends on what the committee ends up doing, but proposals so
far seem to go for either
a) advising
or
b) not existing
so "Advisory Board" for the permanent committee (if any) strikes me
as reasonable. However, I agree with you that the initial committee
should not be identical with the quasi-permanent one.
> Let's not call people "officers" and "executives". Giving out corporate
> titles just isn't in the spirit of Usenet. "chief electron officer"
> indeed.
Tee hee. You may live to regret that pun.
> I might volunteer for something else entirely. If we were to address, What
> is in the best interest of discussing Topic A on Usenet? How do we set up
> a system in which procedures don't impede someone (better yet, a group of
> someones) known for discussing the topic from stepping forward,
> identifying an audience for the topic, making a reasonable judgment that a
> new group is warranted and would enhance discussion? How do we then
> encourage said person to promote the group among the identified audience
> and stick with the group for many months after the newgroup was sent to
> make sure that "discussion happens" and News administrators slow to
> process the newgroup are nagged sufficiently to get the group created?
Huh. This is a weird sort of marriage of the job of alt.config regular
and alt.config regular's ideal alt.* proponent. Gosh, an interesting
thing to come from an ... alt.config regular. But to proceed:
> Over the long run, I don't think a single Group Mentors-like body is going
> to cut it, not for all potential topics that might warrant Big 8 groups.
> Neutral on the worthiness of a topic for a new group won't cut it. I think
> what is necessary are self-identified bodies of Topic Caretakers. We need
> partisans, people who actively participate in discussion and whose
> judgement should be considered when proposals are made. People who have a
> vested interest in helping guide a proponent, if not kicking butt. People
> who will be there to participate in finding the audience and posting to
> the new group.
Aha. What you want is Usenet II czars.
People who may have missed it: Usenet II was an attempt to create a
new, better Usenet that actually got off the ground, in the late 1990s.
One of its key attributes was that its namespace was parceled out
among czars, who were empowered to create and remove groups (and
other such tasks), to recruit czars for subdivisions of their
original chunk of namespace, and to cancel posts within their sphere.
They were expected to recruit users, too.
Now, Usenet II is generally regarded as a failure. One of the things
that led to its failure, from what I've heard, is that its focus on
strict regulation of users was incompatible with its spread to
larger news servers, so that it had to forever fight "leaks" and
suchlike. But another such thing, from what I *saw* when I had
access to the network as well as from what I heard later, is that
czars, despite often being prominent members of the Usenet
communities they were given Usenet II authority over, *normally*
failed to attract lively discussions. There were exceptions, but,
well, not many.
So OK. This was something like eight years ago. I'm prepared to
hear an argument why Usenet II czars would work now, when they didn't
work then. I will note that even this argument doesn't suffice to
show that such czars would work in the Big 8, with its long tradition
of rude hostility to self-appointed overseers; I've seen attempts at
czaring, and they've mostly failed. But *prima facie*, your proposal
doesn't look promising, and I think you still have a case to make.
I'll also note that your proposal suggests a *massive* recruitment
effort. In an age when nearly all groups don't have FAQ maintainers,
I'm curious how successful you think such an effort will be, and
why, and also curious how you propose to carry it out under BI<20
conditions.
> The fundamental need to address is, What will improve discussion on
> Usenet? Next, design a system to meet that need.
While this is a good idea, we saw a *cascade* of efforts in that
direction in the 1990s, and it doesn't look to be a good idea to
actually proceed to try to make happen. Led to a huge amount of
bloviation and one failed network, then. Once again: why do you
think things are different now?
> administrators are meeting their needs and serving their users' interests.
>
> Hierarchy governance should not be considered to be acting in the direct
> interests of users, but only indirectly on their behalf. Hierarchy
> governance should be considered to be acting directly on behalf of News
> administrators.
Oops, I oversnipped. But actually, as I've several times implied
in discussions with Wayne Brown, I don't have a real problem with this.
On the other hand, it appears the current NAN moderators *do* have some
sort of problem with it. And note please that they have posted
describing their efforts *to* make contact with news admins. It's
fairly clear to me that they are saying, among other things, that
news admins did not provide them with validation for their work, but
rather provided them with indifference. Since validation for the
work is a key thing they are concerned future NAN moderators should
have, they are proposing to replace "news admins who don't care" as
the main constituency of NAN moderators with "those users who do
care". I suspect this is why they're specifically recommending
elections, though this wasn't their initial idea.
I would welcome correction from them regarding the whole previous
paragraph, since frankly I'd rather see their arguments for elections
than see them endorse my tea leaf reading. I still have a proposal
to write myself, and am of two minds about elections in many respects.
ANYWAY, to proceed...
> I'm going to be completely unfair and name BarB to the
> panel, someone who has no shortage of common sense and is willing to
> share. She's unflappable, has a good sense of humor, and ignores vile
> nonsense spewed at her when she's willing to help.
>
> For the record, she should be chairman of the committee because she's
> capable of identifying clear objectives and will keep the technical guys
> from going off track.
Ah, good. Agreement in full, always a good way to end a post.
Ma'am, would you be open to the honour? You've posted with concern
about being on the committee to enforce a system you wouldn't agree
with - concern I share, though we seem to be reaching different
conclusions about what to do in that case. But the NAN moderators
seem to be focused *mainly* on finding actual people. If you're willing
to chair the planning committee, and enough of us agree that you're a
good choice, maybe they'll change their minds about the planners having
to also be the founding advisors, and you'll be free to chair without
that saddling you later with enforcing a system you loathe. Deal?
Russ Allbery
> On the other hand, it appears the current NAN moderators *do* have some
> sort of problem with it. And note please that they have posted
> describing their efforts *to* make contact with news admins. It's
> fairly clear to me that they are saying, among other things, that news
> admins did not provide them with validation for their work, but rather
> provided them with indifference. Since validation for the work is a key
> thing they are concerned future NAN moderators should have, they are
> proposing to replace "news admins who don't care" as the main
> constituency of NAN moderators with "those users who do care". I
> suspect this is why they're specifically recommending elections, though
> this wasn't their initial idea.
> I would welcome correction from them regarding the whole previous
> paragraph, since frankly I'd rather see their arguments for elections
> than see them endorse my tea leaf reading. I still have a proposal to
> write myself, and am of two minds about elections in many respects.
Well, I personally don't think elections are a great idea. I've never
thought they were a great idea, and I've not seen anything to change my
mind, no matter how well they seem to work in the uk.*. I worry that we'll
end up selecting for people who are good at winning elections rather than
people who are good at the job. But feel free to take my pet political
theories with a grain of salt; I'm not exactly in the mainstream of
political thought in general. If we have elections in the style of town
councils rather than elections in the style of California ballot
propositions, maybe it will work just fine.
The less important anyone considers all of this, the more likely elections
will work, I think. That seems to be the case for uk.*. And elections
have done okay for Debian Project Leader, although Debian has a ton of
significant advantages over news.groups for holding elections (primarily
in the area of a well-defined and authenticated voter base).
More to the point, however, it sure looks like a lot of people like the
idea of elections. They also have the same cynical advantage as votes on
newsgroup proposals, namely that they're great at making people shut up.
That may sound like a rather dark take on the topic, but the less cynical
way of saying the same thing is that they provide a sense of closure, and
closure is important if anything is ever going to get done. They also
have the effect of co-opting opponents of a system into the system by
getting them to work within the system to change it, thereby continuing to
support the system. That's exactly one of the reasons why I don't like
them, but it's not *necessarily* a bad thing.
Plus, it doesn't really matter what I think about elections, since the
point of this for me is to get out of the business of being the person
whose opinions matter. What matters is whether *you all* want to have
elections. We haven't tried it before and uk.* seems to like it, so
there's certainly some appeal in giving it a shot.
> But the NAN moderators seem to be focused *mainly* on finding actual
> people.
I think we're still working with problems small enough that the people
involved matter considerably more than the system. That calculus changes
with large numbers of people, but I think the break point is larger than
the Big Eight newsgroup creation system.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>I might volunteer for something else entirely. If we were to address,
>>What is in the best interest of discussing Topic A on Usenet? How do we
>>set up a system in which procedures don't impede someone (better yet, a
>>group of someones) known for discussing the topic from stepping forward,
>>identifying an audience for the topic, making a reasonable judgment that
>>a new group is warranted and would enhance discussion? How do we then
>>encourage said person to promote the group among the identified audience
>>and stick with the group for many months after the newgroup was sent to
>>make sure that "discussion happens" and News administrators slow to
>>process the newgroup are nagged sufficiently to get the group created?
>Huh. This is a weird sort of marriage of the job of alt.config regular
>and alt.config regular's ideal alt.* proponent. Gosh, an interesting
>thing to come from an ... alt.config regular.
Yeah, well, a few things people have suggested are alt-like, and would
have a negative impact on the Big 8. This is something that could have a
positive influence.
>But to proceed:
>>Over the long run, I don't think a single Group Mentors-like body is
>>going to cut it, not for all potential topics that might warrant Big 8
>>groups. Neutral on the worthiness of a topic for a new group won't cut
>>it. I think what is necessary are self-identified bodies of Topic
>>Caretakers. We need partisans, people who actively participate in
>>discussion and whose judgement should be considered when proposals are
>>made. People who have a vested interest in helping guide a proponent, if
>>not kicking butt. People who will be there to participate in finding the
>>audience and posting to the new group.
>Aha. What you want is Usenet II czars.
Gosh. I hope not. Sure, there's a risk that such folks could become
net.cops or topic censors within their newsgroups. If they stopped
discussing the topics they were claiming to support, then they should lose
influence within hierarchy governance.
I was trying to think of a way to avoid voting on proposals that ought to
work (say the MySQL proposal), so if a group of people were to make a
proposal (or a proponent approached an already identified group), then a
newgroup could be sent with reasonable assurance that someone would be
there to make the group a success. I won't call this "fast tracking"
because I don't want people to perceive this to be a shortcut or that the
newgroup is the be all and end all of the process.
It's not meant to be the only method of getting a newgroup. There should
be a number of alternate procedures discussed. In fact, something like the
current voting system could be retained as one of the procedures.
>People who may have missed it: Usenet II was an attempt to create a new,
>better Usenet that actually got off the ground, in the late 1990s. One of
>its key attributes was that its namespace was parceled out among czars,
>who were empowered to create and remove groups (and other such tasks), to
>recruit czars for subdivisions of their original chunk of namespace, and
>to cancel posts within their sphere. They were expected to recruit users,
>too.
I know. I'm not suggesting any form of retromoderation powers. The people
I have in mind for said committees would not be people who promise to get
discussions started on topics they care about, but people actually
regularly participating in said discussions. I think that would in no way
resemble Usenet II.
>But *prima facie*, your proposal doesn't look promising, and I think you
>still have a case to make.
You're right.
>I'll also note that your proposal suggests a *massive* recruitment
>effort.
No, just the opposite. It would be self-identified, might work only for a
few topics. Many topics would never see caretakers. But if they came
forward and were whom they claimed to be, either as proponents or in
support of a particular proposal, then it would be worth taking them at
their word that they could get the proposed group up and running.
>In an age when nearly all groups don't have FAQ maintainers, I'm curious
>how successful you think such an effort will be, and why, and also
>curious how you propose to carry it out under BI<20 conditions.
Perhaps a proponent could be informed of this alternate procedure at the
time his proposal was submitted; that might be sufficient.
>>The fundamental need to address is, What will improve discussion on
>>Usenet? Next, design a system to meet that need.
>While this is a good idea, we saw a *cascade* of efforts in that
>direction in the 1990s, and it doesn't look to be a good idea to actually
>proceed to try to make happen.
Hm. I'm not sure what other efforts failed that you refer to.
>>Hierarchy governance should not be considered to be acting in the direct
>>interests of users, but only indirectly on their behalf. Hierarchy
>>governance should be considered to be acting directly on behalf of News
>>administrators.
>Oops, I oversnipped. But actually, as I've several times implied
>in discussions with Wayne Brown, I don't have a real problem with this.
>On the other hand, it appears the current NAN moderators *do* have some
>sort of problem with it.
In a followup to something else I wrote elsewhere in the thread, Russ
implied that he felt that there were enough News administrators running
checkgroups to make hierarchy administration worthwhile.
Many care about the News administrators who refuse to run checkgroups.
Short of avoiding their servers, there really isn't anything to be done.
>And note please that they have posted describing their efforts *to* make
>contact with news admins. It's fairly clear to me that they are saying,
>among other things, that news admins did not provide them with validation
>for their work, but rather provided them with indifference.
Which I suspect would continue until the hierarchy administrators did
something that would make it difficult or impossible for a News
administrator to proecss the next checkgroups.
Weeks ago, I had suggested that the running of checkgroups, in and of
itself, would be sufficient for validation.
>Since validation for the work is a key thing they are concerned future
>NAN moderators should have, they are proposing to replace "news admins
>who don't care" as the main constituency of NAN moderators with "those
>users who do care". I suspect this is why they're specifically
>recommending elections, though this wasn't their initial idea.
Seemed like Todd wants elections of some sort and Russ doesn't.
Thomas Lee
<newgroup...@isc.org> writes
>
>In Message-ID: <11297405...@isc.org>, I outlined a plan to
>hand control of the Big-8 group list to a publicly-selected Board.
>
>Board.
I've been a member of uk.*'s committee since it was started. Having came
4th for 3 seats in our recent elections, I have some spare time on my
hands.
I'm happy to volunteer.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Todd Michel McComb
Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>I Volunteer.
OK, noted.