The last checkgroups sent for the fr.* hierarchy was in 2014, along with
the creation of a newsgroup.
In January 2020, a vote leaded to the creation of a new newsgroup.
There were 8 pros and 3 cons. No control article has been sent yet
because it seems that the public key has been lost since 2014. But
well, that's another point, and we'll deal with that via the generation
of a new modern PGP key and its progressive update in news servers.
In parallel of that, we're discussing in the fr.* hierarchy potential
new rules to create/remove newsgroups, and I reckon it should be
interesting to share best current practices in other hierarchies.
- Do you still use votes by mails?
Or votes directly in an admin newsgroup, in response to the article
asking to vote? or, even more "modern", a Doodle-like vote?
Note that votes are public in the fr.* hierarchy (and not reserved to a
Board like what is done for the Big-8).
- Do you still have a threshold?
In the 2000s, we asked for 80 YES more than NO, which is obviously
impossible today. We only had 11 votes in January 2020...
- How to prevent "unwanted" changes, if the processus is laxed?
I see that de.alt.* allows the creation of a newsgroup if "the protest
was not too violent" (according to Google Translate) after a usual
period of 7 days. But what is the definition of "too violent"? Does
that rule work in practice?
- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of a
newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?
We would like to make the creation and removal of fr.* newsgroups more
fluid, but defining the process is tricky...
Any thoughts or advices about it according to your experience in other >hierarchies?
Motivated promotion means the proponent spends months looking for[...]> The reasons 10s of thousands of proposed newsgroups typically fail to
discussion taking place on that topic in other newsgroups and asks those posters to try the proposed group.
find an audience is 1) lack of discussion and 2) proponent who could
care less.
[...]We would like to make the creation and removal of fr.* newsgroups more
fluid, but defining the process is tricky...
Any thoughts or advices about it according to your experience in other
hierarchies?
New groups do not attract new discussion to Usenet. It's more important to get discussion going on the topic of interest. Once there is sustainable discussion, then the decision can be made about breaking it off into a
new group. But make sure there is sufficient discussion in the general newsgroup for fr.* or another newsgroup in which French is used first.
Discussion of the topic is the important bit. Having a highly motivated proponent is the important bit. Just discussing the idea of discussing
the topic in a proposed group is the irrelevant bit.
Either the topic is being discussed on Usenet, or it's not.
In parallel of that, we're discussing in the fr.* hierarchy potential
new rules to create/remove newsgroups, and I reckon it should be
interesting to share best current practices in other hierarchies.
- Do you still use votes by mails?Yes
- Do you still have a threshold?No
- How to prevent "unwanted" changes, if the processus is laxed?We have a fast-track process for uncontroversial changes, but any 6
- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of aNo
newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?
All your questions about uk.* are addressed on our webpage: http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html
- How to prevent "unwanted" changes, if the processus is laxed?We have a fast-track process for uncontroversial changes, but any 6 objections (or 1 that the Committee feels well-founded) stops the
fast-track, and then a vote is needed.
- Do you still use votes by mails?
- Do you still have a threshold?
In the 2000s, we asked for 80 YES more than NO, which is obviously
impossible today. We only had 11 votes in January 2020...
- How to prevent "unwanted" changes, if the processus is laxed?
I see that de.alt.* allows the creation of a newsgroup if "the protest
was not too violent" (according to Google Translate) after a usual
period of 7 days. But what is the definition of "too violent"?
Does that rule work in practice?
- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of a
newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?
We would like to make the creation and removal of fr.* newsgroups more
fluid, but defining the process is tricky...
(Speaking for de.*)
Julien ELIE wrote:
- Do you still use votes by mails?
Yes, we do.
The voting part has mostly been done exclusively by the German
Volunteer Votetakers (GVV) for the last two decades, although that's
not a requirement.
- Do you still have a threshold?
We still require at least 50 YES votes (at least 60 until 2012), and a
2/3 majority.
In the 2000s, we asked for 80 YES more than NO, which is obviously >>impossible today. We only had 11 votes in January 2020...
We don't have that many - really, any ... - creation or removal
proposals any more. From 2011-2013 we had quite a lot of removal
proposals (a bit of housekeeping), and the threshold was not that of a >problem. The last vote ever - up to today - was 2018 and passed the >threshold.
Today, the threshold could be a real problem - we'll see if and when
we get a proposal (and put it to the vote).
- How to prevent "unwanted" changes, if the processus is laxed?
I see that de.alt.* allows the creation of a newsgroup if "the protest
was not too violent" (according to Google Translate) after a usual
period of 7 days. But what is the definition of "too violent"?
That definition is, of course, controversial. :)
It's mostly a combination of "well-founded" and "vocal", I think;
where de.* (without de.alt.*) has a voting system, de.alt.* relies on >consensus.
Does that rule work in practice?
It did, most times, perhaps also due to the fact that de.* is a
managed hierarchy with monthly signed checkgroups, so all de.alt.*
groups have to be part of the checkgroups for de.* to really get
propagated [1]. The moderation of de.admin.news.announce, which is >responsible for the checkgroups messages, therefore has to play the
referee in case of disagreement and decide disputes about group
creations (and deletions).
I'm not sure it would work today (the last deletion was 2104, I think,
the last creation 2011). Consensus-based systems seem to require more >knowledge, participation and, yes, goodwill and acceptance than simply >voting.
[1] One could use scoped checkgroups instead, but that failed
spectacularly in 2000 and has not been tested again since.
- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of a
newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?
No. "Removed" groups tend to stay around.
We would like to make the creation and removal of fr.* newsgroups more >>fluid, but defining the process is tricky...
It is.
The process used for de.* has mostly worked well, I think, but with
with today's user numbers - and the declining interest in text-based
Usenet overall - a system along the lines of the Big8 would probably
be preferable: proposals, discussion, perhaps a non-binding poll
leading to a decision of a decision making body.
Otherwise, what Adam said in <rqj857$ngv$1@dont-email.me> ... but
there just aren't that many postings any more. [2]
[2] Of 377 newsgroups in de.*, just about 25-30 get more than 200
posts per month (~ 7-10/day). Some hundred (nearly) empty groups
should have been removed for years, I think, but why bother?
Hi Matthew,
All your questions about uk.* are addressed on our webpage:
http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html
Thanks for the pointer. Very well described; I even see a "Quick
creation" request with 11 supporters.
- How to prevent "unwanted" changes, if the processus is laxed?We have a fast-track process for uncontroversial changes, but any 6
objections (or 1 that the Committee feels well-founded) stops the
fast-track, and then a vote is needed.
Do you happen to know how the number 6 was chosen?
The notion of "well-founded" is also easy to define objectively...
In the 2000s, we asked for 80 YES more than NO, which is obviously
impossible today. We only had 11 votes in January 2020...
We don't have that many - really, any ... - creation or removal
proposals any more. From 2011-2013 we had quite a lot of removal
proposals (a bit of housekeeping), and the threshold was not that of a problem. The last vote ever - up to today - was 2018 and passed the threshold.
Today, the threshold could be a real problem - we'll see if and when
we get a proposal (and put it to the vote).
One could use scoped checkgroups instead, but that failed
spectacularly in 2000 and has not been tested again since.
- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of a
newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?
No. "Removed" groups tend to stay around.
Of 377 newsgroups in de.*, just about 25-30 get more than 200
posts per month (~ 7-10/day). Some hundred (nearly) empty groups
should have been removed for years, I think, but why bother?
Many thanks for your insight on the German-speaking hierarchy. Very appreciated.
Of 377 newsgroups in de.*, just about 25-30 get more than 200
posts per month (~ 7-10/day). Some hundred (nearly) empty groups
should have been removed for years, I think, but why bother?
Do you know whether that nearly hundred empty groups still have readers?
There's a difference between an empty newsgroup in which a new post
will be answered, and an empty newsgroup in which a new post will stay unanswered...
Many thanks for your work on INN (and a new key for fr.*)!
Of 377 newsgroups in de.*, just about 25-30 get more than 200
posts per month (~ 7-10/day). Some hundred (nearly) empty groups
should have been removed for years, I think, but why bother?
Do you know whether that nearly hundred empty groups still have readers?
No easy way to check that. :)
There's a difference between an empty newsgroup in which a new post
will be answered, and an empty newsgroup in which a new post will stay
unanswered...
Yes, I concur. But IMHO an empty group that _stays_ empty for months
and years does not serve a purpose any longer, too.
- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of a
newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?
No. "Removed" groups tend to stay around.
Unfortunately. At least if they were in an "archive" state, without any
new post, that would be better.
- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of a
newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?
No. "Removed" groups tend to stay around.
Unfortunately. At least if they were in an "archive" state, without any
new post, that would be better.
Why is that? I’m genuinely curious.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 37:12:24 |
Calls: | 6,648 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,193 |
Messages: | 5,329,127 |