woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (06/10/89)
[I am going to be at the USENIX conference next week, so I won't be able to reply to any articles or mailed comments until June 19] This is, at this point, what I am leaning towards calling a vote on. It lists the major issues and how the net SEEMS to be leaning. 1) Should we have a moderated group in which to post new group proposals, official calls for votes, and voting results? The consensus is very clear that such a group would be desireable. 2) Make news.groups moderated and create a new unmoderated group, or create a new moderated group and leave news.groups unmoderated? This is not as clear, but most of the comments I have seen favor leaving news.groups alone and creating a new, moderated group. 3) What to call the new group? news.groups.proposals and news.announce.groups seem to be the favored names. After reading all the comments, I tend to favor news.announce.groups, as news.announce is traditionally where these kinds of groups go. There is some merit to the idea that it should be a subgroup of news.groups, but more people seem to be suggesting news.announce.groups. I confess I hadn't thought of putting the group under news.announce; who says the discussion never accomplishes anything?! 4) Who should be the moderator? Other than myself, I haven't seen any formal suggestions for alternatives, and I have seen (to me) surprisingly little objection to the idea of me moderating the group. So, I propose that I be the moderator. Remember that if the net doesn't like the job I do, we can always go back to the old situation where everything gets posted in the (still unmoderated) news.groups. I plan to have a backup moderator who will take over when I am gone for more than a few days at a time. I don't know who that would be yet. 5) (The fun part) How much moderating should I do? I don't plan to reject proposals based on the merit of the proposal, but I see no harm in doing some rather obvious filtering, such as if someone suggests that we create a rec.football to discuss the NFL, I will point out that we already have a rec.sport.football for that purpose, and save the poor soul from getting flamed to a crisp :-) If someone proposes something that has been shot down several times in the past (e.g. rec.music.rock) I might point that out and ask if they still want to try anyway. If they say yes, it gets posted, period. I would also ensure that the newsgroup creation guidelines are being followed (i.e. I won't post a call for votes 2 days after the proposal, I will ensure that they wait the required 2 weeks). Other than for violation of the guidelines or not within the group's charter (i.e. not a new group proposal, call for votes, or vote result), I will *always* post an article after one iteration, meaning that if I send a message back to the poster, and they respond that they still want to post it anyway, it gets posted. I will note this fact in an editorial remark at the beginning of the article, so everyone on the net will know what kinds of proposals are getting questioned. If the article is cross-posted to any other groups, including but not limited to news.groups, I will cross-post it to those groups when I send it out. I will read any discussion generated by this article when I return from USENIX, and also any comments mailed to me. Then the required time will have passed and I will post a formal call for votes on this proposal, possibly modified as a result of comments I see. It will be very interesting to see the results of the vote. I suspect we will see many more votes cast than normal. --greg
olsen@athena.mit.edu (James J Olsen) (06/11/89)
Greg Woods' recent proposals concerning a newsgroups group are generally quite reasonable and useful. However, I do have a problem with his treatment of newsgroup guidelines: In article <3400@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >Other than for violation of the guidelines or not within the group's >charter (i.e. not a new group proposal, call for votes, or vote >result), I will *always* post an article after one iteration... I am quite uncomfortable with including 'violation of the guidelines' as cause for permanently rejecting an article. I have two reasons for this view: 1. the guidelines are just that: guidelines. (Presumably, Greg wishes to enforce *his* guidelines that he recently posted.) I have no problem with them as suggestions, but they shouldn't be treated as Holy Writ. 2. even within the guidelines, there is an exception for 'extraordinary circumstances'. Is Greg setting himself up as the judge of when these circumstances exist? Why not let the net judge for itself? Therefore, I think the only ground for permanently rejecting an article should be that the article is outside the group's charter.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (06/11/89)
In article <11945@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, olsen@athena.mit.edu (James J Olsen) writes a bunch of stuff: > Therefore, I think the only ground for permanently rejecting an article > should be that the article is outside the group's charter. I thought Greg's article was quite reasonable, but something was niggling at me. James has put his finger on it. Greg's guidelines are pretty good, but they shouldn't be cast in stone. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (06/13/89)
In article <11945@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (James J Olsen) writes: : In article <3400@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: : >Other than for violation of the guidelines or not within the group's : >charter (i.e. not a new group proposal, call for votes, or vote : >result), I will *always* post an article after one iteration... : : I am quite uncomfortable with including 'violation of the guidelines' : as cause for permanently rejecting an article. I'm not too worried about this: since there would also be an unmoderated group, should Greg's judgement prove faulty, the injured party would still have a forum. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (06/20/89)
In article <1989Jun12.181910.10977@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <11945@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (James J Olsen) writes: >: I am quite uncomfortable with including 'violation of the guidelines' >: as cause for permanently rejecting an article. > >I'm not too worried about this: since there would also be an >unmoderated group, should Greg's judgement prove faulty, the injured >party would still have a forum. This is more-or-less what I had in mind. In particular, I do *not* want the responsibility for determining when "extraordinary circumstances" are present. That term is vague on purpose; by definition it is impossible to determine what extraordinary circumstances are until they actually occur. If someone thinks that such circumstances are present, then they are free to post in news.groups and say so. The guidelines can be violated if the will of the net dictates that they should be; just not via news.announce.groups. I envision that group as the place where "normal" group creation proposals will be processed; "extraordinary circumstances", again by definition, will require special handling. The bottom line is, anything rejected for news.announce.groups can always be posted to news.groups. In fact, if that is done and it becomes clear to me that an announcement of what is going on SHOULD appear in news.announce.groups, I may post one. Secondly, I intend to enforce the intent of the guidelines, not the letter. I'm not going to reject a call for votes just because it came 31 days after the call for discussion when the guidelines call for 30 days max. However, if the call for votes comes 60 days later, I might, unless the discussion is still going on. The point of that rule is that when votes are taken, the issues should still be fresh in people's minds. If we have an issue that is really discussed continuously for that long, then I don't see any reason why a call for votes can't appear very late. On the other hand, if discussion dies down, and a month later a call for votes appears out of the blue, this is what the 30-day max rule is designed to prevent. In other words, if the guidelines are followed to the letter then things will always get posted. If not, then some personal judgment on my part will have to be applied to decide if the *intent* of the guidelines is being followed. Lastly, I would like it if people would stop referring to the guidelines as "mine". They aren't. I maintain the wording in them, but I didn't really write them. The rules set down there evolved over several years and dozens of flame wars encompassing the entire net. I will always entertain suggestions for changing them. In fact, I would even be willing to post such suggestions in news.announce.groups (with discussion happening in news.groups, of course) if they are reasonably well stated suggestions and as long as the moderated group doesn't get overwhelmed with this sort of thing. --Greg
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (06/20/89)
In article <1528@stl.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: >We also have to understand and agree what happens if a group gets proposed >in news.groups without being posted to n.g.announce. Should the moderator >pick it up and post to n.g.announce? I expect that what will happen there is someone will mail the poster and suggest that his article go to the moderated group. >I think that in the event of a topical group >creation, where there is good reason to move faster than usual, it should >be possible to create the group as soon as enough votes come in. The problem with this is that there is no good way to determine whether there is "good reason to move faster than usual". I am NOT comfortable with the person proposing the group making this decision; nor do I want the responsibility for deciding this myself. If it's topical, create it in alt while the creation process for the main net goes on. --Greg
olsen@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Jim Olsen) (06/21/89)
>>> [me] I am quite uncomfortable with including 'violation of the >>> guidelines' as cause for permanently rejecting an article. >> [T. William Wells] ...since there would also be an unmoderated group... >> the injured party would still have a forum. > [Greg Woods] This is more-or-less what I had in mind. In particular, I > do *not* want the responsibility for determining when "extraordinary > circumstances" are present. Greg seems to be proposing the following organization: news.announce.groups: 'normal' calls for discussion or vote on new newsgroups news.groups: discussion of newsgroup proposals, and also 'extraordinary' calls for discussion or vote on new newsgroups Greg's scheme defeats the goal of putting all newsgroup proposals in one place. It is far preferable for the moderator to simply ensure that the only things appearing in the newsgroup group are in fact newsgroup proposals, and let the voters decide whether the guidelines have been followed sufficiently for that case. If the eventual 'moderated newsgroup group' proposal includes the new guidelines enforcement feature, I shall vote 'No'. > Lastly, I would like it if people would stop referring to the guidelines >as "mine". They aren't. The guidelines *are* Greg's. He wrote the guidelines in their current form, after a discussion which failed to achieve consensus. While their main thrust comes from Usenet tradition, the details are Greg's.
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (06/21/89)
In article <1441@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (Jim Olsen) writes: >It is far preferable for the moderator to simply ensure that the >only things appearing in the newsgroup group are in fact newsgroup >proposals, and let the voters decide whether the guidelines have been >followed sufficiently for that case. If this is what everyone wants, I'll go for it, but the problem with this is that everyone thinks their own pet newsgroup proposal is special. If one person is allowed to violate the guidelines, then everyone will want to. In that event, there is little point in having the guidelines at all. >The guidelines *are* Greg's. He wrote the guidelines in their current >form, after a discussion which failed to achieve consensus. Oh? On what issue was there no consensus? Remember that "consensus" does not mean "everyone is in 100% agreement", it just means that a large majority of the participants agree on all the main points. As I recall, the only issue on which there was no consensus was whether or not to change the 100 vote rule, and even the decision to leave it alone was relatively uncontroversial. As it happens, moderating news.whateveritscalled doesn't have anything to do with enforcing this particular rule anyway. So, what is it in the guidelines that I would be enforcing that there was no consensus on? The guidelines are NOT mine. Even had I crafted them all on my own from scratch, which I obviously did not, they would be ineffective unless there were a netwide consensus that what is in them is mostly "good things". --Greg
olsen@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Jim Olsen) (06/22/89)
>> [me] It is far preferable for the moderator to simply ensure that the >>only things appearing in the newsgroup group are in fact newsgroup >>proposals, and let the voters decide whether the guidelines have been >>followed sufficiently for that case. > [Greg Woods] If this is what everyone wants, I'll go for it, but the >problem with this is that everyone thinks their own pet newsgroup >proposal is special. If one person is allowed to violate the guidelines, >then everyone will want to. In that event, there is little point in >having the guidelines at all. Greg is mistaken. Most people *will* follow the guidelines, since they make sense in the large majority of cases. Right now, everyone is 'allowed' to violate the guidelines, but very few do (except those completely oblivious to them, who don't bother with proposals anyway). Routine proposals which gratuitously violated the guidelines would be rejected by the voters. On the other hand, extraordinary proposals should not be hobbled because the guidelines did not anticipate them. > [regarding the recent guideline revision] On what issue was there no > consensus? When no vote was taken, arguments about 'consensus' in a past discussion are pointless and irresolvable. I'm not trying to impugn Greg's motives; I thank him for undertaking the guideline revision. I'm just trying to point out that the guidelines are a necessarily imperfect framework. We must ensure that the newsgroups system provides the needed flexibility, and avoids a bureaucratic straitjacket.
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (07/22/89)
In article <3400@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes:
#3) What to call the new group? news.groups.proposals and news.announce.groups
I think news.groups.announce would be the clearest name.
# I propose that I be the moderator.
No problem
#5) (The fun part) How much moderating should I do?
Guide and advise - your job should be to help proposers get the best chance of
success. Many people who want a new group do not have any idea how to go
about it, and some alienate some of us by doing it wrong. If you become
news.group.annouce moderator you will probably become the person people
will contact for advice and discussion before they even make a formal new
group proposal. Also, of course you should advise people if a group
suggestion is unwise, but if they insist then you must accept it anyway,
even if it is for comp.protocols.tcp.eniac or sci.guns.politics.
# Other than for violation of the guidelines or not within the group's
# charter I will *always* post an article after one iteration
Good.
# I will note this fact in an editorial remark, so the net will know what
# kinds of proposals are getting questioned.
I see your point, but no. You should not comment either way on proposals.
Post a list of proposals you have queried from time to time if you like,
not including any currently being voted on; this should achieve a similar
effect without biassing a vote.
We also have to understand and agree what happens if a group gets proposed
in news.groups without being posted to n.g.announce. Should the moderator
pick it up and post to n.g.announce? I think so, but even if not,
the proposal should still be valid as at present. This will avoid the
moderator having too much power: his power to advise and influence will
be very considerable anyway.
Now to a more controversial suggestion: having adopted the current
guidelines we have no way to create a new group quickly on the main net
(alt is useful but many sites don't get it, and others - e.g. all of eunet
- get only a few groups). I think that in the event of a topical group
creation, where there is good reason to move faster than usual, it should
be possible to create the group as soon as enough votes come in. This
requirement should be stricter than a normal vote however: e.g. "as soon
as a majority of 120 of YES votes occurs, or if there is a majority of 100
after 30 days". But who would decide that such a case applies? With a
moderator, we have a possible mechanism: iff the proposer(s) of a new
group ask for "fast creation" in proposing a new group, and if during the
discussion period their justification is generally accepted, then the fast
method would apply: the moderator would decide whether these conditions
had been met based on the opinions expressed during the discussion.
Do we trust the moderator to do that? Such a vote would have to state
in the Call for Votes that it was using the "fast create" rule, and why.
And the justification would have to show an exceptional case - not just
"we really want this group and don't want to wait for it".
Regards, "None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity"
David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK
dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW