REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group comp.lang.go
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the >>unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.go
A summary of discussion up this this point:
Initial informal proposal:
<t20mgj$tjt$1@dont-email.me>
Replies in favour: (split between news.groups.proposals and news.groups) >meff: <t220cs$hfd$1@dont-email.me>
Spiros Bousbouras: <zsZeFX5hmOfIR8UIh@bongo-ra.co> (not a Go programmer
but would read it)
John McCue: <t25gja$154$1@dont-email.me>
a cat: <u6m01p$1ilrg$3@dont-email.me>
John: <86wmzhkk8m.fsf@building-m.net>
Vasco Costa: <t2sfk2$1tfh$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Replies against:
Adam H. Kerman would like to see more existing discussion before
considering the creation of a new group: <u6m01p$1ilrg$3@dont-email.me>
Steve Bonine makes a similar suggestion: <t251fv$o44$1@dont-email.me>
First RFD:
<u81jit$5eeu$1@dont-email.me>
Replies in favour:
Syber Shock: <d84d5420307f18b128e6956313cbec07$1@sybershock.com>
a cat: <u841p2$i40b$3@dont-email.me>
NerdRat Hispagatos: <ua19oe$bmir$1@matrix.hispagatos.org>
yeti: <87sf96a52m.fsf@tilde.institute> (Also not a Go programmer, but >planning to read the group at least for a while)
Xenophon: <ucro7q$3ku21$4@dont-email.me>
horeszko: <uctbc1$3vc7s$1@dont-email.me>
Other replies in these threads were neutral or not directly relevant to >whether to create the group.
Please note that I refuse to post RFD in the moderated newsgroup.
If the topic isn't being discussed on Usenet, starting a new group
doesn't magically get the discussion to take place on Usenet. I am not
aware of where the proponent had been discussing the Go language
either. That was not shared during proposal discussion.
RFD is not about who favors starting a newsgroup and who doesn't. It's
not about who would read or post and who won't.
It's about whether the topic is currently being discussed on Usenet
and whether encouraging discussion to take place in the newsgroup for
the narrower topic would enhance discussion.
The usual thought about whether a topic being discussed on Usenet
might be considered to be the basis for a proposed group is whether
there is a minimum of 10 articles a day of discussion on topic.
Am 22.09.2023 um 11:17:10 Uhr schrieb sticks:
Personally, the thought of a group of people deciding what is spam
and who to censor bothers me.
Moderation can be different. Moderators CAN censor, but they can also
not do it and simply not allow spam to be posted.
. . .
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
Am 22.09.2023 um 11:17:10 Uhr schrieb sticks:
Personally, the thought of a group of people deciding what is spam
and who to censor bothers me.
Moderation can be different. Moderators CAN censor, but they can also
not do it and simply not allow spam to be posted.
This is entirely wrong.
Moderation is not a useful spam countermeasure. A spam countermeasure
is ALWAYS implemented server wide, not in a single newsgroup.
Also, it's not censorship, per se. A moderator adds an Approved header
if the article is approved. The article isn't supposed to be edited otherwise, but that does happen in certain moderated newsgroups.
Instead, moderation is used to reject proto articles that might be
trolls or advertising or off topic in some other way. The problem is
that the newsgroup's regulars are incapable of sitting on their hands
and not post followups. The problem is that a newsgroup's regulars
are seen as so immature that they stop posting on topic in the face
of any amount of off-topic posts.
Of course that's ridiculous. Grown ups don't require moderated
newsgroups. A group's regular has to decide for himself to post on
topic, regardless of what other people are posting or not posting, and
never to troll feed.
The theory that moderation encourages posting because off topic
articles weren't approved isn't true either. I am a member of several moderated newsgroups that still have active moderators but negligible participation.
Also, CHANGING the moderation flag from unmoderated to moderated --
called moderation in place -- is well known NOT to work because there
is no way to force any server that created the group to act on a
control message issued years later that resets the flag. The bad
result would be a mix of servers with the group moderated and
unmoderated, which means articles will propogate poorly.
Am 22.09.2023 um 16:09:18 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
Please note that I refuse to post RFD in the moderated newsgroup.
Why?
If the topic isn't being discussed on Usenet, starting a new group
doesn't magically get the discussion to take place on Usenet. I am not >>aware of where the proponent had been discussing the Go language
either. That was not shared during proposal discussion.
What about comp.lang.misc?
Did people there discuss Go?
If that group is being created and announced, people interested can
post there (at least some are interested).
Without a group, no discussion can take place.
RFD is not about who favors starting a newsgroup and who doesn't. It's
not about who would read or post and who won't.
It's about whether the topic is currently being discussed on Usenet
and whether encouraging discussion to take place in the newsgroup for
the narrower topic would enhance discussion.
Creating a group and announcing it elsewhere might attract people.
If the groups isn't being used at all for ~ a year it can be deleted
like other empty groups.
The usual thought about whether a topic being discussed on Usenet
might be considered to be the basis for a proposed group is whether
there is a minimum of 10 articles a day of discussion on topic.
I don't agree with that.
There are groups that have only 10 messages per month, but are interesting.
If we don't create space for new languages, most likely nobody will
discuss them.
Am 22.09.2023 um 17:05:52 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
Am 22.09.2023 um 11:17:10 Uhr schrieb sticks:
Personally, the thought of a group of people deciding what is spam
and who to censor bothers me.
Moderation can be different. Moderators CAN censor, but they can also
not do it and simply not allow spam to be posted.
This is entirely wrong.
It isn't.
Spam can be reduced, but there will be a small amount of spam.
Moderation makes it possible to allow that spam to reach the
newsgroup.
Moderation is not a useful spam countermeasure. A spam countermeasure
is ALWAYS implemented server wide, not in a single newsgroup.
That is one part of it, but every public newsserver can be used for
spam and the admin can detect it only after it has been posted.
Also, it's not censorship, per se. A moderator adds an Approved header
if the article is approved. The article isn't supposed to be edited >>otherwise, but that does happen in certain moderated newsgroups.
Then it is the moderator's fault.
Instead, moderation is used to reject proto articles that might be
trolls or advertising or off topic in some other way. The problem is
that the newsgroup's regulars are incapable of sitting on their hands
and not post followups. The problem is that a newsgroup's regulars
are seen as so immature that they stop posting on topic in the face
of any amount of off-topic posts.
Of course that's ridiculous. Grown ups don't require moderated
newsgroups. A group's regular has to decide for himself to post on
topic, regardless of what other people are posting or not posting, and >>never to troll feed.
Wrong guess, even adults can be trolls, see all the stuff that was
posted through mixmin.
Moderation makes it possible to have a group without all that bullshit
if there is a good moderation.
The theory that moderation encourages posting because off topic
articles weren't approved isn't true either. I am a member of several >>moderated newsgroups that still have active moderators but negligible >>participation.
Another problem.
. . .
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
Moderation is not a useful spam countermeasure. A spam
countermeasure is ALWAYS implemented server wide, not in a single >>newsgroup.
That is one part of it, but every public newsserver can be used for
spam and the admin can detect it only after it has been posted.
What the hell does that have to do with moderation?
Moderation is approval or rejection of the proto article and does not
act upon a Usenet articles that wasn't stopped with a spam
countermeasure.
Also, it's not censorship, per se. A moderator adds an Approved
header if the article is approved. The article isn't supposed to be >>edited otherwise, but that does happen in certain moderated
newsgroups.
Then it is the moderator's fault.
No, this is YOUR fault for making comments in followup that are
irrelevant to what's being discussed.
A moderator will see email spam because of the nature of moderation.
He isn't going to see Usenet spam. The spam he sees (that get through
his email filters) is nothing to do with spam countermeasures already
taken.
Are you even aware that an article submitted to a moderated newsgroup
goes through what's essentially a News to Mail gateway? In theory, the spammer will have been kicked off the well-run server and won't have
the ability to post. But email spammers would attempt to spam the
submission address.
Moderation makes it possible to have a group without all that
bullshit if there is a good moderation.
There will never be enough moderators to make you happy, Marco. There
are hundreds of abandoned moderated groups. "If there is no shortage
of good people willing to moderate effectively" is handwaiving.
The theory that moderation encourages posting because off topic
articles weren't approved isn't true either. I am a member of
several moderated newsgroups that still have active moderators but >>negligible participation.
Another problem.
You're ignoring what I'm saying. There is no evidence that the
advantage of moderation actually encourages an adequate amount of
on-topic posting.
Am 22.09.2023 um 18:29:47 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
Moderation is not a useful spam countermeasure. A spam
countermeasure is ALWAYS implemented server wide, not in a single >>>>newsgroup.
That is one part of it, but every public newsserver can be used for
spam and the admin can detect it only after it has been posted.
What the hell does that have to do with moderation?
Because in moderated newsgroups that spam will only reach the
moderation address, but not the newsgroup.
Moderation is approval or rejection of the proto article and does not
act upon a Usenet articles that wasn't stopped with a spam
countermeasure.
These articles will not be posted to the group directly, they go to the >moderation mailbox first, so spam isn't successful. . . .
Also, it's not censorship, per se. A moderator adds an Approved
header if the article is approved. The article isn't supposed to be >>>>edited otherwise, but that does happen in certain moderated
newsgroups.
Then it is the moderator's fault.
No, this is YOUR fault for making comments in followup that are
irrelevant to what's being discussed.
You started with the censorship discussion.
A moderator will see email spam because of the nature of moderation.
He isn't going to see Usenet spam. The spam he sees (that get through
his email filters) is nothing to do with spam countermeasures already >>taken.
Are you even aware that an article submitted to a moderated newsgroup
goes through what's essentially a News to Mail gateway? In theory, the >>spammer will have been kicked off the well-run server and won't have
the ability to post. But email spammers would attempt to spam the >>submission address.
Is that currently a real situation?
The most spam comes from Google groups and that means it comes from
Googles News2Mail gateway.
Moderation makes it possible to have a group without all that
bullshit if there is a good moderation.
There will never be enough moderators to make you happy, Marco. There
are hundreds of abandoned moderated groups. "If there is no shortage
of good people willing to moderate effectively" is handwaiving.
I agree with that, but that is not a problem by moderation itself if
there are nut enough moderators.
I don't advocate creating a moderated newsgroup for the go programming >language.
The theory that moderation encourages posting because off topic >>>>articles weren't approved isn't true either. I am a member of
several moderated newsgroups that still have active moderators but >>>>negligible participation.
Another problem.
You're ignoring what I'm saying. There is no evidence that the
advantage of moderation actually encourages an adequate amount of
on-topic posting.
That is true, but it prevents trollposts and other abusive articles
being approved.
Again, I don't think that a moderated group is good for the Go language
and the RfC doesn't suggest it. The author pointed out that moderation
was just a guess for last resort in the case the group will be flooded
by off-topic posts.
I don't think that will happen.
A well-run News site implements spam countermeasures and TOSses users
that violate AUP. A spammer will get TOSsed and therefore CANNOT get a
proto article gated to the moderation address.
Am 22.09.2023 um 21:07:14 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
A well-run News site implements spam countermeasures and TOSses users
that violate AUP. A spammer will get TOSsed and therefore CANNOT get a >>proto article gated to the moderation address.
You know that there are news servers that don't care about it, e.g.
Mixmin, neodome (in the past), aioe (only a bit, mayn trolls used it).
That means you can't rely on the news server operators to avoid >spam/trollposts being posted.
You besmirched Paolo's reputation; Paolo did not allow spam, what with
strict posting limits.
You know that there are news servers that don't care about it, e.g.
Mixmin, neodome (in the past), aioe (only a bit, mayn trolls used it).
That means you can't rely on the news server operators to avoid >spam/trollposts being posted.
. . .
Most servers will perform checkgroups. I don't care about those that
not do.
There are plenty of News administrator who do not process checkgroups
at all, or don't process it around the time the hierarchy
administrator sent it. There are News administrators who won't remove newsgroups just because the hierarchy administrator no longer
recognizes it, so they process newgroup messages only, not rmgroup,
not checkgroups.
This is why it's the proponent's job to find potential users. It's up
to the user to request creation of the group he wants to post in from
his News administrator. The proponent CANNOT sit on his hands ASSUMING checkgroups will be timely processed everywhere.
But most proponents don't follow through on actually getting
discussion going 'cuz they suck.
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
You know that there are news servers that don't care about it, e.g.
Mixmin, neodome (in the past), aioe (only a bit, mayn trolls used it).
Yes, and THIS is the problem. Until this is fixed, spam will be around
no matter what filtering or moderation any server or newsgroup may use.
. . .
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
You know that there are news servers that don't care about it, e.g. >>>Mixmin, neodome (in the past), aioe (only a bit, mayn trolls used it).
Yes, and THIS is the problem. Until this is fixed, spam will be around
no matter what filtering or moderation any server or newsgroup may use.
Moderation remains largely irrelevant as a spam countermeasure because
it's labor intensive. No one volunteering to be a moderated should be
told, Oh! By the way, YOU'RE the one who gets to deal with spam!
You're a very long time poster. I just went through this whole thing
with Marco. Don't you also bring up moderation together with spam.
Am 23.09.2023 um 17:28:33 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
There are plenty of News administrator who do not process checkgroups
at all, or don't process it around the time the hierarchy
administrator sent it. There are News administrators who won't remove >>newsgroups just because the hierarchy administrator no longer
recognizes it, so they process newgroup messages only, not rmgroup,
not checkgroups.
It is the "good tone" of the news server administrators to process the >massages of the hierarchy administrators.
Most server do it and these are the servers where the users are that
post interesting stuff.
This is the user base that is valuable.
This is why it's the proponent's job to find potential users. It's up
to the user to request creation of the group he wants to post in from
his News administrator. The proponent CANNOT sit on his hands ASSUMING >>checkgroups will be timely processed everywhere.
Without assuming that, this administration would be useless. The the
groups could be created in alt.*.
Again, wise news server administrators care about the control messages
of hierarchy administrators.
But most proponents don't follow through on actually getting
discussion going 'cuz they suck.
I don't agree with that.
In the German de.* hierarchy, many groups were deleted and some were
created instead. News server did run the control messages and have an
up to date group list.
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
Am 23.09.2023 um 17:28:33 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
There are plenty of News administrator who do not process
checkgroups at all, or don't process it around the time the
hierarchy administrator sent it. There are News administrators who
won't remove newsgroups just because the hierarchy administrator no >>longer recognizes it, so they process newgroup messages only, not >>rmgroup, not checkgroups.
It is the "good tone" of the news server administrators to process
the massages of the hierarchy administrators.
Welcome to Usenet, Marco. Administration is decentralized. If a
hierarchy administrator issues a rmgroup that the News administrator disagrees with, the News administrator has the final word.
A News administrator offers Usenet to his users as a set of newsgroups
that he has chosen. It's nothing to do with whether the site is well
run.
The set of newsgroups offered doesn't affect other sites.
All we want from a well-run site is not allowing spam to originate,
not to commit abuse of Usenet, not to forge, and not to send articles
in violation of USEFOR.
Most server do it and these are the servers where the users are that
post interesting stuff.
This is the user base that is valuable.
Ok. I'm not disagreeing that articles won't propogate unless another
site has the group created locally.
This is why it's the proponent's job to find potential users. It's
up to the user to request creation of the group he wants to post in
from his News administrator. The proponent CANNOT sit on his hands >>ASSUMING checkgroups will be timely processed everywhere.
Without assuming that, this administration would be useless. The the
groups could be created in alt.*.
Marco, you truly go out of your way to miss my point. There's little difference these days between alt.* and the Big 8 or another
administered hierarchy about how much effort goes into getting a group started. You have to get users interested in posting and, if the group
isn't created locally, to request its creation.
It's not the hierarchy administrator's job to get the group going. His
job ends with sending the newgroup and checkgroups.
Again, wise news server administrators care about the control
messages of hierarchy administrators.
Why? If no user on his server wants to post to the group, what
difference does it make if he's created it locally?
Do you read all the humanities.* groups? Does anybody?
But most proponents don't follow through on actually getting
discussion going 'cuz they suck.
I don't agree with that.
Name a recent proponent who doesn't suck.
In the German de.* hierarchy, many groups were deleted and some were >created instead. News server did run the control messages and have an
up to date group list.
What does that have to do with whether a proponent followed through to
make sure sustainable levels of discussion took place after the group
had been newgroups for two or three months?
Am 24.09.2023 um 05:08:51 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
Am 23.09.2023 um 17:28:33 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
There are plenty of News administrator who do not process
checkgroups at all, or don't process it around the time the
hierarchy administrator sent it. There are News administrators who >>>>won't remove newsgroups just because the hierarchy administrator no >>>>longer recognizes it, so they process newgroup messages only, not >>>>rmgroup, not checkgroups.
It is the "good tone" of the news server administrators to process
the massages of the hierarchy administrators.
Welcome to Usenet, Marco. Administration is decentralized. If a
hierarchy administrator issues a rmgroup that the News administrator >>disagrees with, the News administrator has the final word.
I know that, but most server operators follow the control messages.
These servers are the most relevant.
A News administrator offers Usenet to his users as a set of newsgroups
that he has chosen. It's nothing to do with whether the site is well
run.
A well-run site processes the control messages. Most server will do it.
I care about those who do and not those who not process the control
messages because of laziness or other stupid arguments.
Most of these servers already closed in the past.
The set of newsgroups offered doesn't affect other sites.
It does because if they don't carry the group, they will refuse
articles and peers at least need one peer that has the group to make
article flow possible.
All we want from a well-run site is not allowing spam to originate,
not to commit abuse of Usenet, not to forge, and not to send articles
in violation of USEFOR.
That is another topic.
. . ,
Marco, you truly go out of your way to miss my point. There's little >>difference these days between alt.* and the Big 8 or another
administered hierarchy about how much effort goes into getting a group >>started. You have to get users interested in posting and, if the group >>isn't created locally, to request its creation.
There is a huge difference.
alt if full of empty groups, big8 had cleanups and I advocate for
another one (I know you will disagree, but I don't care).
It's not the hierarchy administrator's job to get the group going. His
job ends with sending the newgroup and checkgroups.
It is the job of the server administrators to run these control
messages.
Most of the do and I care about them not about the
administrators who refuse to do so and continue to destroy Usenet.
I simply don't give a fuck about Google groups and others.
Again, wise news server administrators care about the control
messages of hierarchy administrators.
Why? If no user on his server wants to post to the group, what
difference does it make if he's created it locally?
Because it is the "good tone" to do so.
If there is any valuable amount of users, they will demand to run the
control messages.
Please tell me which server won't process them, but care about their
users.
Do you read all the humanities.* groups? Does anybody?
I don't.
But most proponents don't follow through on actually getting
discussion going 'cuz they suck.
I don't agree with that.
Name a recent proponent who doesn't suck.
In the German de.* hierarchy, many groups were deleted and some were >>>created instead. News server did run the control messages and have an
up to date group list.
What does that have to do with whether a proponent followed through to
make sure sustainable levels of discussion took place after the group
had been newgroups for two or three months?
Think about comp.sys.raspberry-pi and comp.infosystems.gemini.
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
A News administrator offers Usenet to his users as a set of
newsgroups that he has chosen. It's nothing to do with whether the
site is well run.
A well-run site processes the control messages. Most server will do
it.
My concern is that a News site doesn't cause trouble for the rest of
the network and TOSses users who would wreak havoc. Didn't we just
agree to this in the other discussion?
I care about those who do and not those who not process the control >messages because of laziness or other stupid arguments.
Most of these servers already closed in the past.
Why? If you don't care for how one site is administered, then become a
user on a different site. You aren't affected.
It's also the proponent's job to encourage users to request creation
of the group locally if that's not the News administrator's policy
about accepting the hierarchy administrator's checkgroups.
The set of newsgroups offered doesn't affect other sites.
I'm going to correct myself: If a site offers a newsgroup that has a
newgroup message or is listed in checkgroups for both, then it DOES
cause problems for the rest of the network if the group wasn't created locally using the syntactically-correct name.
It does because if they don't carry the group, they will refuse
articles and peers at least need one peer that has the group to make >article flow possible.
I really don't care about the problems of poorly connected News sites.
All we want from a well-run site is not allowing spam to originate,
not to commit abuse of Usenet, not to forge, and not to send
articles in violation of USEFOR.
That is another topic.
Yes, it is another topic but let's agree that's what we both mean by
well-run News site, which is one that isn't causing trouble for the
network or allowing its users to commit Usenet abuse.
Marco, you truly go out of your way to miss my point. There's little >>difference these days between alt.* and the Big 8 or another
administered hierarchy about how much effort goes into getting a
group started. You have to get users interested in posting and, if
the group isn't created locally, to request its creation.
There is a huge difference.
alt if full of empty groups, big8 had cleanups and I advocate for
another one (I know you will disagree, but I don't care).
The Big 8 is full of empty groups because of incompetence and bad
assumptions made by past hierarchy administrators. Skirv newgrouped a
dozen Big 8 groups redundant of alt.* groups, every one of which
failed.
You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent proponent
MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP whether it's in an administered or unadministered hierarchy. Discussion doesn't just
appear by magic.
It's not the hierarchy administrator's job to get the group going.
His job ends with sending the newgroup and checkgroups.
It is the job of the server administrators to run these control
messages.
Dude, if you are a News administrator, you get to decide independently
how to run your server.
Show the same courtesy to all the other News administrators and stop lecturing them on how to run their sites and what set of newsgroups
they must offer their users.
Whether they process or reject control messages is their business and
not your business.
Most of the do and I care about them not about the
administrators who refuse to do so and continue to destroy Usenet.
Will you please stop chewing the scenery?
I simply don't give a fuck about Google groups and others.
Ok
Again, wise news server administrators care about the control
messages of hierarchy administrators.
Why? If no user on his server wants to post to the group, what
difference does it make if he's created it locally?
Because it is the "good tone" to do so.
I've never heard that from anyone else.
If there is any valuable amount of users, they will demand to run the >control messages.
Didn't I just say that?
Please tell me which server won't process them, but care about their
users.
There are institutional hierarchies on numerous News servers with a
set of newsgroups that came from the institution's own News server
that remain despite the fact that the institution's News site was
taken off line years ago. That's the most common example.
Do you read all the humanities.* groups? Does anybody?
I don't.
Just pointing out the obvious here that there's no real advantage to administered hierarchies in terms of popularity or likelihood of
traffic. Most of those groups probably should have been started in
alt.*, and of course, some were.
But most proponents don't follow through on actually getting >>>>discussion going 'cuz they suck.
I don't agree with that.
Name a recent proponent who doesn't suck.
Who were you thinking of, Marco?
In the German de.* hierarchy, many groups were deleted and some
were created instead. News server did run the control messages and
have an up to date group list.
What does that have to do with whether a proponent followed through
to make sure sustainable levels of discussion took place after the
group had been newgroups for two or three months?
Think about comp.sys.raspberry-pi and comp.infosystems.gemini.
I vaguely recall that the Gemini proponent looked for users, but
perhaps I'm wrong, don't recall the other proponent lifting a finger.
Am 24.09.2023 um 06:58:13 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
A News administrator offers Usenet to his users as a set of
newsgroups that he has chosen. It's nothing to do with whether the
site is well run.
A well-run site processes the control messages. Most server will do
it.
My concern is that a News site doesn't cause trouble for the rest of
the network and TOSses users who would wreak havoc. Didn't we just
agree to this in the other discussion?
I care about those who do and not those who not process the control >>>messages because of laziness or other stupid arguments.
Most of these servers already closed in the past.
Why? If you don't care for how one site is administered, then become a
user on a different site. You aren't affected.
That's why I don't understand you talk about control messages so much,
if server operators refuse to do it, users MUST find another server to
use the groups.
If they want to, they will use another server.
If not, we don't need to care.
It's also the proponent's job to encourage users to request creation
of the group locally if that's not the News administrator's policy
about accepting the hierarchy administrator's checkgroups.
I agree. And if the admin refuses, the user must look for another
server.
Rather easy. There are enough good ones that care bout control messages
and have the current group list.
The set of newsgroups offered doesn't affect other sites.
I'm going to correct myself: If a site offers a newsgroup that has a >>newgroup message or is listed in checkgroups for both, then it DOES
cause problems for the rest of the network if the group wasn't created >>locally using the syntactically-correct name.
Configuration problem.
Other servers will refuse to take messages for that group.
A normal situation if servers don't carry certain hierarchies, but
receive messages from peers for that groups.
A new group isn't an additional problem.
Not creating it because of local configuration mistakes might happen
isn't an argument.
. . .
Marco, you truly go out of your way to miss my point. There's little >>>>difference these days between alt.* and the Big 8 or another >>>>administered hierarchy about how much effort goes into getting a
group started. You have to get users interested in posting and, if
the group isn't created locally, to request its creation.
There is a huge difference.
alt if full of empty groups, big8 had cleanups and I advocate for
another one (I know you will disagree, but I don't care).
The Big 8 is full of empty groups because of incompetence and bad >>assumptions made by past hierarchy administrators. Skirv newgrouped a
dozen Big 8 groups redundant of alt.* groups, every one of which
failed.
The advocate to delete them with an RfD.
You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent proponent
MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP whether it's in an >>administered or unadministered hierarchy. Discussion doesn't just
appear by magic.
True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the group has
been created.
It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in certain
months". People will look after they read it, see there is currently no
such group and leave.
Advocating must take place when the group exists and people can start
writing there.
It's not the hierarchy administrator's job to get the group going.
His job ends with sending the newgroup and checkgroups.
It is the job of the server administrators to run these control
messages.
Dude, if you are a News administrator, you get to decide independently
how to run your server.
Technically, this is true.
Although most of them want to take part in the global Usenet and
that means they should care about the hierarchy administration's
decisions. That is the reason that a global distributed network will
work for all participants.
. . .
We should also not care about news server operators who refuse to run
control messages for administered hierarchies.
Show the same courtesy to all the other News administrators and stop >>lecturing them on how to run their sites and what set of newsgroups
they must offer their users.
I am sorry, but that is simply bullshit.
Taking part in a global network means that there must be a certain
level of cooperation to make that work.
For me that implies running control messages to make sure the current
group list is available.
For me not doing that is the same as not caring about spelling an
grammar because everybody can decide himself how to write.
Good communication doesn't work with such attitudes.
Whether they process or reject control messages is their business and
not your business.
True, it is their business, but if they refuse to do it, I refuse to
care about them. If simply don't give a fuck about them.
Whether or not I give that is my business, not their.
Most of the do and I care about them not about the
administrators who refuse to do so and continue to destroy Usenet.
Will you please stop chewing the scenery?
Why should I?
Why do you think that my sentence is wrong?
. . .
Again, wise news server administrators care about the control >>>>>messages of hierarchy administrators.
Why? If no user on his server wants to post to the group, what >>>>difference does it make if he's created it locally?
Because it is the "good tone" to do so.
I've never heard that from anyone else.
It seems you don't understand (or don't wanna) what administrated
hierarchies mean and what purpose they have.
If server operators don't like the concept, why do they provide these >hierarchies and not only free.* and alt.* that are non-administrated and
are intended that every server operator decides on his own without central >decisions? These hierarchies are well for them, administered aren't.
If there is any valuable amount of users, they will demand to run the >>>control messages.
Didn't I just say that?
Fo me it looks like you are against changes in big8 because there are
servers that won't process the control messages.
Please tell me which server won't process them, but care about their >>>users.
There are institutional hierarchies on numerous News servers with a
set of newsgroups that came from the institution's own News server
that remain despite the fact that the institution's News site was
taken off line years ago. That's the most common example.
Did they issue control messages to remove these groups?
Did they announced the end of these groups or the entire server to
their peers?
Do you read all the humanities.* groups? Does anybody?
I don't.
Just pointing out the obvious here that there's no real advantage to >>administered hierarchies in terms of popularity or likelihood of
traffic. Most of those groups probably should have been started in
alt.*, and of course, some were.
Really?
That is already full of junk and that makes is really, really hard to
find groups with content, even for new users.
But most proponents don't follow through on actually getting >>>>>>discussion going 'cuz they suck.
I don't agree with that.
Name a recent proponent who doesn't suck.
Who were you thinking of, Marco?
I haven't followed the RfDs of big-8 in the past, so I cannot answer
that.
In the German de.* hierarchy, many groups were deleted and some
were created instead. News server did run the control messages and >>>>>have an up to date group list.
What does that have to do with whether a proponent followed through
to make sure sustainable levels of discussion took place after the >>>>group had been newgroups for two or three months?
Think about comp.sys.raspberry-pi and comp.infosystems.gemini.
I vaguely recall that the Gemini proponent looked for users, but
perhaps I'm wrong, don't recall the other proponent lifting a finger.
Didn't that rek2 for go too?
If somebody has checked the syntactically correct name -- both the
poster AND the News administrator creating it locally -- no, it's not
a problem at all. But if a newsgroup gets created locally because of
such a policy of creating everything and its name isn't syntactially
correct, it is a problem for the network.
Not creating it because of local configuration mistakes might happen
isn't an argument.
I never said "because of local configuration mistakes". You did. I'm
saying it was policy on certain News sites to offer "a complete set of
Usenet groups to their users" by creating groups locally based on
what a user put on the Newsgroups header in lieu of finding the
newgroup message and processing that.
Marco, if I believed that cleaning up checkgroups was a way of solving
the problem of lack of on-topic discussion taking place, I would have
said so. Instead, it's well known to be irrelevant. In the Big 8, reorganizations have been busy work or an exercise in power by the
hierarchy administrator. None of it has anything to do with whether discussion takes place.
In the grand scheme of things, let's rank who is important.
1) The News administrator
2) The user, posting something interesting and on topic
3) The proponent
4) The hierarchy administrator
Number 4 is way way down there in importance. Because of the
decentralized nature of Usenet, they are far less important than the
other two. Because sending a newgroup message (or checkgroups in the
case of an administered hierarchy) has nothing to do with whether a
group will succeed or fail, they are far less important than
proponents.
A new group fails because the proponent sat on his hands. Numerous new
groups were started for discussion of a topic not already taking place
on Usenet. Without on-topic interesting discussion, the group fails.
The mere act of issuing a control message is not a known method of
getting any interesting on topic discussion started.
You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent
proponent MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP whether
it's in an administered or unadministered hierarchy. Discussion
doesn't just appear by magic.
True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the group
has been created.
Usenet doesn't require your assurances, Marco. If he does his job,
great! You cannot make any promises about what somebody else will do.
It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in certain >months". People will look after they read it, see there is currently
no such group and leave.
I don't know what you are talking about here. The promotion I'm
talking about must take place AFTER the newgroup message was sent.
Before the message was sent, the proponent finds discussion of the
topic so he knows where to promote it. A proponent who isn't well
known for discussing the topic on Usenet is unlikely to be a good
proponent.
Advocating must take place when the group exists and people can start >writing there.
Yes.
Discussion along the lines of "Yes! I'll read the group!" during RFD
phase is largely useless.
It's not the hierarchy administrator's job to get the group going. >>>>His job ends with sending the newgroup and checkgroups.
It is the job of the server administrators to run these control >>>messages.
Dude, if you are a News administrator, you get to decide
independently how to run your server.
Technically, this is true.
In actual reality, both de jure and de facto, this is true.
Although most of them want to take part in the global Usenet and
that means they should care about the hierarchy administration's
decisions. That is the reason that a global distributed network will
work for all participants.
Nobody should care about a hierarchy administrator's decision because
it isn't very important.
Instead, a News administrator should care about offering a set of
Usenet newsgroups that his own users would benefit from and act upon
a user's request that a group be created locally.
The only thing that's important is creating a group with a
syntactically correct name. For that the News administrator consults
or literally processes the newgroup message.
Interesting on topic discussion in a set of newsgroups offered by a
News administrator to his users is what's important. Really nothing
else is important.
We should also not care about news server operators who refuse to run >control messages for administered hierarchies.
I never did care!
It doesn't cause harm to the network!
It's nobody else's business.
Show the same courtesy to all the other News administrators and stop >>lecturing them on how to run their sites and what set of newsgroups
they must offer their users.
I am sorry, but that is simply bullshit.
It's literally not your business.
Taking part in a global network means that there must be a certain
level of cooperation to make that work.
The minimum required cooperation is creating a newsgroup locally with
the syntactically correct name to make it possible to effectively
distribute articles posted to the group.
For me that implies running control messages to make sure the current
group list is available.
For me not doing that is the same as not caring about spelling an
grammar because everybody can decide himself how to write.
Good communication doesn't work with such attitudes.
How exactly has communication taken place within a newsgroup that
isn't being read locally?
It's like conflating the print run of a magazine with the number of
copies sold to subscribers or purchasers at news stands. If the copy
was printed but not read, communication hasn't taken place. The copy
goes to the landfill.
Whether they process or reject control messages is their business
and not your business.
True, it is their business, but if they refuse to do it, I refuse to
care about them. If simply don't give a fuck about them.
Whether or not I give that is my business, not their.
Do they care if you care?
Most of the do and I care about them not about the
administrators who refuse to do so and continue to destroy Usenet.
Will you please stop chewing the scenery?
Why should I?
Why do you think that my sentence is wrong?
Because they haven't destroyed Usenet.
Interesting on topic discussion is all that matters.
Nothing else does. If a News site's users are neither reading nor
posting to a particular newsgroup, it's irrelevant whether it's
created locally or not.
That local decision certainly does not affect
the network.
Lack of local creation of a specific group cannot
possibly destroy Usenet.
Again, wise news server administrators care about the control >>>>>messages of hierarchy administrators.
Why? If no user on his server wants to post to the group, what >>>>difference does it make if he's created it locally?
Because it is the "good tone" to do so.
I've never heard that from anyone else.
It seems you don't understand (or don't wanna) what administrated >hierarchies mean and what purpose they have.
I am well aware of what a hierarchy administrator's role is. It's
just a whole lot less important in how Usenet functions as a medium of communication than you believe it is.
If server operators don't like the concept, why do they provide these >hierarchies and not only free.* and alt.* that are non-administrated
and are intended that every server operator decides on his own
without central decisions? These hierarchies are well for them, >administered aren't.
The effective difference from the News administrator's perspective
with respect to newsgroup creation is whether there's a newgroup
message or there's also a checkgroups message. Otherwise it's the
same.
We even have administered hierarchies that don't issue checkgroups.
It's common in regional hierarchies with a stable set of groups.
If there is any valuable amount of users, they will demand to run
the control messages.
Didn't I just say that?
Fo me it looks like you are against changes in big8 because there are >servers that won't process the control messages.
I said nothing of the kind. You aren't listening. I've been trying to
get you to appreciate that it's the proponent who has the critical
role in a new group's success or failure, and not the hierarchy administrator.
Please tell me which server won't process them, but care about
their users.
There are institutional hierarchies on numerous News servers with a
set of newsgroups that came from the institution's own News server
that remain despite the fact that the institution's News site was
taken off line years ago. That's the most common example.
Did they issue control messages to remove these groups?
Julien used to do that with respect to microsoft.* but that was an
oddball situation.
Did they announced the end of these groups or the entire server to
their peers?
Mostly the servers went off line.
Do you read all the humanities.* groups? Does anybody?
I don't.
Just pointing out the obvious here that there's no real advantage to >>administered hierarchies in terms of popularity or likelihood of
traffic. Most of those groups probably should have been started in
alt.*, and of course, some were.
Really?
No one promoted them. tale just wanted them.
That is already full of junk and that makes is really, really hard to
find groups with content, even for new users.
How difficult is a key word search?
In the German de.* hierarchy, many groups were deleted and some >>>>>were created instead. News server did run the control messages
and have an up to date group list.
What does that have to do with whether a proponent followed
through to make sure sustainable levels of discussion took place >>>>after the group had been newgroups for two or three months?
Think about comp.sys.raspberry-pi and comp.infosystems.gemini.
I vaguely recall that the Gemini proponent looked for users, but
perhaps I'm wrong, don't recall the other proponent lifting a
finger.
Didn't that rek2 for go too?
It hasn't been newgrouped yet!
Am 24.09.2023 um 15:12:14 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
If somebody has checked the syntactically correct name -- both the
poster AND the News administrator creating it locally -- no, it's not
a problem at all. But if a newsgroup gets created locally because of
such a policy of creating everything and its name isn't syntactially >>correct, it is a problem for the network.
I don't know a server with such a policy. As you said there is a real
risk that users create just everything - either intended or by mistakes.
Not creating it because of local configuration mistakes might happen >>>isn't an argument.
I never said "because of local configuration mistakes". You did. I'm
saying it was policy on certain News sites to offer "a complete set of >>Usenet groups to their users" by creating groups locally based on
what a user put on the Newsgroups header in lieu of finding the
newgroup message and processing that.
Agree, I didn't saw that risk, but I assume well-manages sites don't
have such a feature enabled.
Marco, if I believed that cleaning up checkgroups was a way of solving
the problem of lack of on-topic discussion taking place, I would have
said so. Instead, it's well known to be irrelevant. In the Big 8, >>reorganizations have been busy work or an exercise in power by the >>hierarchy administrator. None of it has anything to do with whether >>discussion takes place.
Be aware that sometimes people check group lists for interesting
groups. If that list is too full of unused groups, it is harder to
find active ones.
. . .
You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent
proponent MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP whether >>>>it's in an administered or unadministered hierarchy. Discussion
doesn't just appear by magic.
True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the group
has been created.
Usenet doesn't require your assurances, Marco. If he does his job,
great! You cannot make any promises about what somebody else will do.
He told that in the discussions. For me it looks like you don't take
the words of people serious if they are quoted.
It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in certain >>>months". People will look after they read it, see there is currently
no such group and leave.
I don't know what you are talking about here. The promotion I'm
talking about must take place AFTER the newgroup message was sent.
Before the message was sent, the proponent finds discussion of the
topic so he knows where to promote it. A proponent who isn't well
known for discussing the topic on Usenet is unlikely to be a good >>proponent.
I don't agree with that. The proponent is responsible for creating the >discussion about it, not about the topic itself.
Advocating must take place when the group exists and people can start >>>writing there.
Yes.
Discussion along the lines of "Yes! I'll read the group!" during RFD
phase is largely useless.
Because of what?
If nobody reads it, it is not worth posting.
. . .
Although most of them want to take part in the global Usenet and
that means they should care about the hierarchy administration's >>>decisions. That is the reason that a global distributed network will
work for all participants.
Nobody should care about a hierarchy administrator's decision because
it isn't very important.
Please stop repeating and repeating that bullshit again.
The concept of administered hierarchies is, that the administrations
decides certain things and then all servers apply it.
I know that there is no law that forces them and I don't want it, but
it is the best practice and courteous to do that.
Those administrators who don't like administrated hierarchies should
look at alt.*, that is there hierarchy for those who don't want to have
an external administration.
. . .
Instead, a News administrator should care about offering a set of
Usenet newsgroups that his own users would benefit from and act upon
a user's request that a group be created locally.
That is entirely against the concept of administrated hierarchies and
treated as bad behavior by most users.
The only thing that's important is creating a group with a
syntactically correct name. For that the News administrator consults
or literally processes the newgroup message.
Interesting on topic discussion in a set of newsgroups offered by a
News administrator to his users is what's important. Really nothing
else is important.
Providing the entire hierarchy has the possibility that people are able
to find groups to post.
Without providing them, people can't find and therefore cannot post.
If all server admins argumented like that, almost no new groups could
be created at all, because if nobody creates them first and shows users
that it exists, nobody will post there.
. . .
It doesn't cause harm to the network!
It makes it impossible that users can benefit from changes in the
hierarchy.
It's nobody else's business.
What is your problem with that?
For me it looks like you don't want that people criticize that.
. . .
It seems you don't have any arguments anymore.
. . .
How exactly has communication taken place within a newsgroup that
isn't being read locally?
It seems your are either unable to understand or not willing:
If a group doesn't exist, nobody can find nor read it.
Is it that hard to understand?
It's like conflating the print run of a magazine with the number of
copies sold to subscribers or purchasers at news stands. If the copy
was printed but not read, communication hasn't taken place. The copy
goes to the landfill.
That is true, but if the magazine doesn't exist at the news stand,
there is a 100% probability that nobody can read it there.
. . .
That destroys discussions, just look at the situation at Google groups.
Interesting on topic discussion is all that matters.
They can only happen if new groups are available. If they are not
available, nobody can post from such a server.
. . .
Only a small amount of users reads the admin groups.
That local decision certainly does not affect the network.
Bullshit, again and again.
If many news servers refuse to create new groups (because of mostly
stupid reasons), no discussion can take place from these servers.
Users also cannot find that group on these servers.
Lack of local creation of a specific group cannot possibly destroy Usenet.
Of course it can if there are too much of these servers.
Again, wise news server administrators care about the control >>>>>>>messages of hierarchy administrators.
Why? If no user on his server wants to post to the group, what >>>>>>difference does it make if he's created it locally?
Because it is the "good tone" to do so.
I've never heard that from anyone else.
It seems you don't understand (or don't wanna) what administrated >>>hierarchies mean and what purpose they have.
I am well aware of what a hierarchy administrator's role is. It's
just a whole lot less important in how Usenet functions as a medium of >>communication than you believe it is.
That is because you most important thing is that there are nasty news
server administrators that don't process the control groups for
whatever reason.
Is it so hard to understand the concept of "administrated" hierarchies?
Don't like it?
Don't provide it to your users, it creates nasty mess.
That is my answer to such administrators.
If there is any valuable amount of users, they will demand to run
the control messages.
Didn't I just say that?
Fo me it looks like you are against changes in big8 because there are >>>servers that won't process the control messages.
I said nothing of the kind. You aren't listening. I've been trying to
get you to appreciate that it's the proponent who has the critical
role in a new group's success or failure, and not the hierarchy >>administrator.
And it is YOU that doesn't want to understand that the hierarchy >administrators are one part of it.
. . .
Just pointing out the obvious here that there's no real advantage to >>>>administered hierarchies in terms of popularity or likelihood of >>>>traffic. Most of those groups probably should have been started in >>>>alt.*, and of course, some were.
That is already full of junk and that makes is really, really hard to >>>find groups with content, even for new users.
How difficult is a key word search?
You don't seem to understand that a search won't filter out empty
groups with no readers or posts in the last years.
Such groups are useless and many of them exist in alt.
. . .
Didn't that rek2 for go too?
It hasn't been newgrouped yet!
They why do you advocate against it without knowing what will happen in
the future?
We can only see what happens after the group creation.
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
Am 24.09.2023 um 15:12:14 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
If somebody has checked the syntactically correct name -- both the
poster AND the News administrator creating it locally -- no, it's
not a problem at all. But if a newsgroup gets created locally
because of such a policy of creating everything and its name isn't >>syntactially correct, it is a problem for the network.
I don't know a server with such a policy. As you said there is a real
risk that users create just everything - either intended or by
mistakes.
There were commercial servers that did that, plus Chris Caputo.
Not creating it because of local configuration mistakes might
happen isn't an argument.
I never said "because of local configuration mistakes". You did. I'm >>saying it was policy on certain News sites to offer "a complete set
of Usenet groups to their users" by creating groups locally based on
what a user put on the Newsgroups header in lieu of finding the
newgroup message and processing that.
Agree, I didn't saw that risk, but I assume well-manages sites don't
have such a feature enabled.
I'm sure it's NOT a feature of INN! But commercial sites likely wrote
their own servers.
Marco, if I believed that cleaning up checkgroups was a way of
solving the problem of lack of on-topic discussion taking place, I
would have said so. Instead, it's well known to be irrelevant. In
the Big 8, reorganizations have been busy work or an exercise in
power by the hierarchy administrator. None of it has anything to do
with whether discussion takes place.
Be aware that sometimes people check group lists for interesting
groups. If that list is too full of unused groups, it is harder to
find active ones.
How does one do that without performing a key word search?
You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent
proponent MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP
whether it's in an administered or unadministered hierarchy. >>>>Discussion doesn't just appear by magic.
True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the group
has been created.
Usenet doesn't require your assurances, Marco. If he does his job,
great! You cannot make any promises about what somebody else will
do.
He told that in the discussions. For me it looks like you don't take
the words of people serious if they are quoted.
On Usenet, what people promise to do is irrelevant. What they actually
do is what's important. If he promotes the group, great! Then it
stands a better chance of not failing.
It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in certain >>>months". People will look after they read it, see there is
currently no such group and leave.
I don't know what you are talking about here. The promotion I'm
talking about must take place AFTER the newgroup message was sent.
Before the message was sent, the proponent finds discussion of the
topic so he knows where to promote it. A proponent who isn't well
known for discussing the topic on Usenet is unlikely to be a good >>proponent.
I don't agree with that. The proponent is responsible for creating
the discussion about it, not about the topic itself.
If you've never read anything that the guy has written about the
topic, why would you pay him any mind?
Advocating must take place when the group exists and people can
start writing there.
Yes.
Discussion along the lines of "Yes! I'll read the group!" during RFD >>phase is largely useless.
Because of what?
If nobody reads it, it is not worth posting.
Because we already know that they HAVEN'T been discussing the topic on Usenet. If they've had a history of posting about the topic, then it's possible to count the number of articles that have been posted
discussing the topic.
Although most of them want to take part in the global Usenet and
that means they should care about the hierarchy administration's >>>decisions. That is the reason that a global distributed network
will work for all participants.
Nobody should care about a hierarchy administrator's decision
because it isn't very important.
Please stop repeating and repeating that bullshit again.
The concept of administered hierarchies is, that the administrations >decides certain things and then all servers apply it.
Interesting on topic discussion transcends everything else in an
interactive medium of communication.
I know that there is no law that forces them and I don't want it, but
it is the best practice and courteous to do that.
Those administrators who don't like administrated hierarchies should
look at alt.*, that is there hierarchy for those who don't want to
have an external administration.
What makes you think they don't like a particular hierarchy? There's
nothing wrong with creating a group on behalf of a user.
Instead, a News administrator should care about offering a set of
Usenet newsgroups that his own users would benefit from and act upon
a user's request that a group be created locally.
That is entirely against the concept of administrated hierarchies and >treated as bad behavior by most users.
I don't agree. There are users who object to rmgroups -- there used to
be quite a few -- who might look for a server that won't process
rmgroups and checkgroups for that reason.
It's actually NOT against the concept of hierarchy administration
given that Usenet is decentralized.
For the 27th time, the News administrator runs Usenet, not the
hierarchy administrator.
That means the News administrator and not the hierarchy administrator
decides what set of newsgroups in that hierarchy to offer to his
users.
All we want the News administrator to do is create the group
with the syntactically correct name.
If he offers groups within the hierchy not recognized by the
hierarchy administrator, he gets to do that. Why? Because he's in
charge.
The only thing that's important is creating a group with a
syntactically correct name. For that the News administrator consults
or literally processes the newgroup message.
Interesting on topic discussion in a set of newsgroups offered by a
News administrator to his users is what's important. Really nothing
else is important.
Providing the entire hierarchy has the possibility that people are
able to find groups to post.
Without providing them, people can't find and therefore cannot post.
I use the sample newsgroups file at ftp.isc.org to search, not the
local newsgroups file.
But you're right that the user what find something in the local
active or newsgroups file that's not there.
If all server admins argumented like that, almost no new groups could
be created at all, because if nobody creates them first and shows
users that it exists, nobody will post there.
Totally and absurdly wrong.
This is why the proponent's job is so critical, to overcome ignorance
and apathy.
He mentions the group name in an article. The user then
requests its creation if not yet created locally, then posts to it.
Plenty of alt.* groups have good propagation despite the best practice
of NOT creating an alt.* group lacking a user request.
It doesn't cause harm to the network!
It makes it impossible that users can benefit from changes in the >hierarchy.
You're still wrong. This is why the proponent's job is key.
It's nobody else's business.
What is your problem with that?
I don't have a problem. You are simply wrong. A News administrator on
a foreign network isn't your employee. You don't tell him how to offer
Usenet to his users.
That's the way Usenet works.
For me it looks like you don't want that people criticize that.
It's pointless to do so. You really refuse to grasp the concept of decentralized administration of Usenet, which really is one of its
best features despite what you think.
In other followups you've claimed that you understand that the
hierarchy administrator isn't in charge of Usenet. In this followup,
you don't understand it, not at all.
It seems you don't have any arguments anymore.
You're right. You have always made it difficult for someone else to
get a point across to do. At some point, I will get completely fed up
with talking to you.
How exactly has communication taken place within a newsgroup that
isn't being read locally?
It seems your are either unable to understand or not willing:
If a group doesn't exist, nobody can find nor read it.
Is it that hard to understand?
You're flat out wrong.
A new group is started. In order for the group not to fail, ignorance
and apathy must be overcome.
Other Usenet users are ignorant that the newgroup message was sent or
are apathetic about the topic, disagreeing with the proponent that
the new group was needed or that potential discussion in the new
group is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
The hierarchy administrator's job, even if EVERY News site that takes newsgroups in the hierarchy processes checkgroups, has nothing to do
with overcoming ignorance and apathy.
The argument you make essentially argues that alt.* groups should be generally created locally without a user expressing interest. Even
though I prefer the procedure in alt.*, such as it is, to that in the traditional hoop jumping in the Big 8 a proponent is made to go
through (of which there is a lot less at the moment), no alt.* group
should be created locally lacking a user request.
A few News administrators follow proposal discussion in alt.config
(when there is any) or just read newgroup messages as they come in to
decide whether to create a group. That's a perfectly fine way to
administer a News site, but that's rare.
That destroys discussions, just look at the situation at Google
groups.
I refuse to. I don't like the way they presented Usenet even when they
had just purchased Deja News. The Web interface is dreadful.
Lack of Google's willingness to process control messages doesn't
destroy Usenet.
In fact, it's a benefit as it's impossible to post a
conventional Usenet article in pure plain text through Google Groups.
If I post a followup, it's real work on my part to purge nonprinting characters and bad MIME.
Interesting on topic discussion is all that matters.
They can only happen if new groups are available. If they are not >available, nobody can post from such a server.
That's false.
The user requests creation.
If the News administrator won't act on a user request, the user
changes to a different News site.
Only a small amount of users reads the admin groups.
Of course that's true. It's why discussion during RFD "I promise to
post!" is irrelevant. RFD is not a publicity method.
That local decision certainly does not affect the network.
Bullshit, again and again.
If many news servers refuse to create new groups (because of mostly
stupid reasons), no discussion can take place from these servers.
Users also cannot find that group on these servers.
I don't get it. Why would many refuse to do so? Are you introducing
some sort of hypothetical controversy concerning the group's name?
Lack of local creation of a specific group cannot possibly destroy >>Usenet.
Of course it can if there are too much of these servers.
You've told me that there aren't. Why raise a hypothetical that
contradicts your own position?
Again, wise news server administrators care about the control >>>>>>>messages of hierarchy administrators.
Why? If no user on his server wants to post to the group, what >>>>>>difference does it make if he's created it locally?
Because it is the "good tone" to do so.
I've never heard that from anyone else.
It seems you don't understand (or don't wanna) what administrated >>>hierarchies mean and what purpose they have.
I am well aware of what a hierarchy administrator's role is. It's
just a whole lot less important in how Usenet functions as a medium
of communication than you believe it is.
That is because you most important thing is that there are nasty news >server administrators that don't process the control groups for
whatever reason.
I wrote nothing of the kind.
Don't like it?
Don't provide it to your users, it creates nasty mess.
That is my answer to such administrators.
None would have sought your advice.
Just pointing out the obvious here that there's no real advantage
to administered hierarchies in terms of popularity or likelihood
of traffic. Most of those groups probably should have been
started in alt.*, and of course, some were.
That is already full of junk and that makes is really, really hard
to find groups with content, even for new users.
How difficult is a key word search?
You don't seem to understand that a search won't filter out empty
groups with no readers or posts in the last years.
Such groups are useless and many of them exist in alt.
So you acknowledge that there are many useless newsgroups in
administered hierarchies too and that a group created in an
administered hierarchy doesn't prevent it from failing.
In any event, users are always told the same thing: Lacking
interesting discussion to read, it's your job to start some. If you
sit on your hands forever waiting waiting waiting for someone else to
go first, the group will probably fail. Refusing to start interesting discussion is a choice that you've made.
This is truly why users are far more important than hierarchy
administrators. They literally decide what gets discussed through
their posting habits.
Didn't that rek2 for go too?
It hasn't been newgrouped yet!
They why do you advocate against it without knowing what will happen
in the future?
My participation in RFD was minimal. I've been hitting my head against
the wall failing to get you to see the light. You and I have not been engaging in RFD discussion.
We can only see what happens after the group creation.
Wrong terminology. Newsgroups are created locally, not Usenet wide. A
control message isn't an act of creation. It's hard to get proponents
to understand the decentralized nature of Usenet.
Am 24.09.2023 um 18:47:31 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
Am 24.09.2023 um 15:12:14 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
If somebody has checked the syntactically correct name -- both the >>>>poster AND the News administrator creating it locally -- no, it's
not a problem at all. But if a newsgroup gets created locally
because of such a policy of creating everything and its name isn't >>>>syntactially correct, it is a problem for the network.
I don't know a server with such a policy. As you said there is a real >>>risk that users create just everything - either intended or by
mistakes.
There were commercial servers that did that, plus Chris Caputo.
Are these still there?
Are these relevant to the text usenet?
Who is Chris Caputo?
Not creating it because of local configuration mistakes might
happen isn't an argument.
I never said "because of local configuration mistakes". You did. I'm >>>>saying it was policy on certain News sites to offer "a complete set
of Usenet groups to their users" by creating groups locally based on >>>>what a user put on the Newsgroups header in lieu of finding the >>>>newgroup message and processing that.
Agree, I didn't saw that risk, but I assume well-manages sites don't
have such a feature enabled.
I'm sure it's NOT a feature of INN! But commercial sites likely wrote
their own servers.
Then it is their problem.
Marco, if I believed that cleaning up checkgroups was a way of
solving the problem of lack of on-topic discussion taking place, I >>>>would have said so. Instead, it's well known to be irrelevant. In
the Big 8, reorganizations have been busy work or an exercise in
power by the hierarchy administrator. None of it has anything to do >>>>with whether discussion takes place.
Be aware that sometimes people check group lists for interesting
groups. If that list is too full of unused groups, it is harder to
find active ones.
How does one do that without performing a key word search?
Simply look at the group list is how normal users find groups.
You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent >>>>>>proponent MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP
whether it's in an administered or unadministered hierarchy. >>>>>>Discussion doesn't just appear by magic.
True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the group >>>>>has been created.
Usenet doesn't require your assurances, Marco. If he does his job, >>>>great! You cannot make any promises about what somebody else will
do.
He told that in the discussions. For me it looks like you don't take
the words of people serious if they are quoted.
On Usenet, what people promise to do is irrelevant. What they actually
do is what's important. If he promotes the group, great! Then it
stands a better chance of not failing.
Please stay on topic. You complained about my sentence that I would
"assure" that he will advertise the group.
It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in certain >>>>>months". People will look after they read it, see there is
currently no such group and leave.
I don't know what you are talking about here. The promotion I'm
talking about must take place AFTER the newgroup message was sent. >>>>Before the message was sent, the proponent finds discussion of the >>>>topic so he knows where to promote it. A proponent who isn't well
known for discussing the topic on Usenet is unlikely to be a good >>>>proponent.
I don't agree with that. The proponent is responsible for creating
the discussion about it, not about the topic itself.
If you've never read anything that the guy has written about the
topic, why would you pay him any mind?
He might know other people who want to write in that group.
Advocating must take place when the group exists and people can
start writing there.
Yes.
Discussion along the lines of "Yes! I'll read the group!" during RFD >>>>phase is largely useless.
Because of what?
If nobody reads it, it is not worth posting.
Because we already know that they HAVEN'T been discussing the topic on >>Usenet. If they've had a history of posting about the topic, then it's >>possible to count the number of articles that have been posted
discussing the topic.
Some new users joined, how do you know what they are interested in?
. . .
You seem to still not understand what the concept of an administered >hierarchy is. Again: The concept is that the hierarchy is the same on
all machines carrying it and NOT that every operator creates groups as
he likes.
Those administrators are a niche, why is that so important for you?
Instead, a News administrator should care about offering a set of >>>>Usenet newsgroups that his own users would benefit from and act upon
a user's request that a group be created locally.
That is entirely against the concept of administrated hierarchies and >>>treated as bad behavior by most users.
I don't agree. There are users who object to rmgroups -- there used to
be quite a few -- who might look for a server that won't process
rmgroups and checkgroups for that reason.
For what reason?
Posting there, so almost nobody will read it?
It's actually NOT against the concept of hierarchy administration
given that Usenet is decentralized.
You don't seem to understand that the idea of the centrally
administered hierarchies is that all news servers carry it in the way
the central administration decided.
You don't need to like it, but that is the common sense and all good
server I know do that.
For the 27th time, the News administrator runs Usenet, not the
hierarchy administrator.
I understand that, but you don't wanna accept that the concept of >administered hierarchies is NOT that every server operator does what he >thinks is good.
That would result in a big mess, like alt.*.
That means the News administrator and not the hierarchy administrator >>decides what set of newsgroups in that hierarchy to offer to his
users.
Technically this is true, but in most cases they provide the list that
is being decided at the administration, whether you like it or not.
Simply accept the facts.
All we want the News administrator to do is create the group
with the syntactically correct name.
For that the control messages from the central administration exist.
Why don't use them?
. . .
I use the sample newsgroups file at ftp.isc.org to search, not the
local newsgroups file.
Then you are the exception.
But you're right that the user what find something in the local
active or newsgroups file that's not there.
Exactly that is the problem. When a group is being announced by the >administration, the user will search in the server´s group list.
If all server admins argumented like that, almost no new groups could
be created at all, because if nobody creates them first and shows
users that it exists, nobody will post there.
Totally and absurdly wrong.
You still don't understand the idea of a centrally administrated
hierarchy.
This is why the proponent's job is so critical, to overcome ignorance
and apathy.
The concept of the big 8 hierarchy is to provide a hierarchy that is
the same on the servers. It is the operators job to ensure that.
You say it is the proponents job to make the admins do that.
What if that fails because the admin has stupid reasons for not doing
it, e.g. he hates the proponent?
He mentions the group name in an article. The user then
requests its creation if not yet created locally, then posts to it.
Users can't find such groups in the group list and think they don't
exist.
Plenty of alt.* groups have good propagation despite the best practice
of NOT creating an alt.* group lacking a user request.
alt.* is a big mess and full of empty groups.
It doesn't cause harm to the network!
It makes it impossible that users can benefit from changes in the >>>hierarchy.
You're still wrong. This is why the proponent's job is key.
You are still not understanding that big8 is not alt.
Is that so hard?
It's nobody else's business.
What is your problem with that?
I don't have a problem. You are simply wrong. A News administrator on
a foreign network isn't your employee. You don't tell him how to offer >>Usenet to his users.
Technically that is true, . . .
For me it looks like you don't want that people criticize that.
It's pointless to do so. You really refuse to grasp the concept of >>decentralized administration of Usenet, which really is one of its
best features despite what you think.
I like that there is no central authority that decides about the posts
of the users, but there must be a conclusion how to handle things.
NNTP is also a standard. What do you think if every operator implements
that in a different and incompatible way?
Would you like that?
. . .
Please give good reasons for not processing control message for >creating/removing groups in a administrated hierarchy.
Fell free to stop discussing with me, it is your freedom to do so.
. . .
Marco, you really don't appreciate the Usenet maxim His server, his
rules.
You don't get to define anything and everything you disagree
with as a "problem" that isn't a problem for the network.
Simply look at the group list is how normal users find groups.
In a regional hierarchy, perhaps. In the Big 8 or alt.*, that's
ridiculous. There are way too many newsgroups.
You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent >>>>>>proponent MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP >>>>>>whether it's in an administered or unadministered hierarchy. >>>>>>Discussion doesn't just appear by magic.
True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the
group has been created.
Usenet doesn't require your assurances, Marco. If he does his job, >>>>great! You cannot make any promises about what somebody else will
do.
He told that in the discussions. For me it looks like you don't
take the words of people serious if they are quoted.
On Usenet, what people promise to do is irrelevant. What they
actually do is what's important. If he promotes the group, great!
Then it stands a better chance of not failing.
Please stay on topic. You complained about my sentence that I would >"assure" that he will advertise the group.
That's literally the topic, that you cannot make a promise on behalf
of somebody else.
It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in
certain months". People will look after they read it, see there
is currently no such group and leave.
I don't know what you are talking about here. The promotion I'm >>>>talking about must take place AFTER the newgroup message was sent. >>>>Before the message was sent, the proponent finds discussion of the >>>>topic so he knows where to promote it. A proponent who isn't well >>>>known for discussing the topic on Usenet is unlikely to be a good >>>>proponent.
I don't agree with that. The proponent is responsible for creating
the discussion about it, not about the topic itself.
If you've never read anything that the guy has written about the
topic, why would you pay him any mind?
He might know other people who want to write in that group.
It's a matter of principle. Someone who might make a good proponent
starts off by demonstrating that he wants to discuss the topic on
Usenet by... discussing the topic on Usenet.
That the hypothetical proponent has never done so is a very bad sign.
That no one discussing the topic even wants to be the proponent is a
huge hint that the newsgroup proposed by the hypothetical proponent is unnecessary.
Advocating must take place when the group exists and people can >>>>>start writing there.
Yes.
Discussion along the lines of "Yes! I'll read the group!" during
RFD phase is largely useless.
Because of what?
If nobody reads it, it is not worth posting.
Because we already know that they HAVEN'T been discussing the topic
on Usenet. If they've had a history of posting about the topic,
then it's possible to count the number of articles that have been
posted discussing the topic.
Some new users joined, how do you know what they are interested in?
It's not difficult to understand my point. We know who is discussing a
topic on Usenet. Everything else is irrelevant. Interest in
discussing a topic is demonstrated by... discussing the topic.
Handwaiving -- I just KNOW it will work! -- invariably leads to a
failed newsgroup.
You seem to still not understand what the concept of an administered >hierarchy is. Again: The concept is that the hierarchy is the same on
all machines carrying it and NOT that every operator creates groups
as he likes.
No. That's absolutely untrue.
Those administrators are a niche, why is that so important for you?
Because they aren't "niche". Not every News server is for the public.
Some News servers are at companies for their own employees. Let's say
the employer knows that newsgroups related to science and techology
exist and that there can be worthwhile discussion in them. Let's say
the employer believes that his employees shouldn't be reading other newsgroups at the office. He offers a News server with newsgroups
that are limited to Usenet groups relevant to their business in Big
8, alt.*, and foreign languages if a few employees speak those
languages. He offers no newsgroups about entertainment or other
topics.
Instead, a News administrator should care about offering a set of >>>>Usenet newsgroups that his own users would benefit from and act
upon a user's request that a group be created locally.
That is entirely against the concept of administrated hierarchies
and treated as bad behavior by most users.
I don't agree. There are users who object to rmgroups -- there used
to be quite a few -- who might look for a server that won't process >>rmgroups and checkgroups for that reason.
For what reason?
Posting there, so almost nobody will read it?
Not everybody agrees with a hierarchy administrator's rmgrouping.
It's actually NOT against the concept of hierarchy administration
given that Usenet is decentralized.
You don't seem to understand that the idea of the centrally
administered hierarchies is that all news servers carry it in the way
the central administration decided.
Now you are babbling and deliberately misusing terms. Hierarchy administration is absolutely not CENTRAL administration. A hierarchy administrator literally administers nothing.
The title is a misnomer.
You don't need to like it, but that is the common sense and all good
server I know do that.
Like everything else, it's not my business.
That's the beauty of distributed administration. There's independent
decision making but a network can and does exist thanks to nothing
but syntax and canonical group names.
Nothing else is like Usenet.
For the 27th time, the News administrator runs Usenet, not the
hierarchy administrator.
I understand that, but you don't wanna accept that the concept of >administered hierarchies is NOT that every server operator does what
he thinks is good.
Literally, every News administrator does what he thinks is best.
That would result in a big mess, like alt.*.
Lack of hierarchy administration is not what's wrong with alt.*. Lots
of useless proponents were the problem. Despite empty groups, there
have always been well-used newsgroups in alt.*. In administered
hierarchies, there have always been failed newsgroups.
That means the News administrator and not the hierarchy
administrator decides what set of newsgroups in that hierarchy to
offer to his users.
Technically this is true, but in most cases they provide the list
that is being decided at the administration, whether you like it or
not. Simply accept the facts.
I'm not the one who won't accept facts.
All we want the News administrator to do is create the group
with the syntactically correct name.
For that the control messages from the central administration exist.
Why don't use them?
Who says they don't?
Stop abusing terminology. You are damn well aware that hierarchy administration isn't "central administration".
You are being deliberately annoying here.
I use the sample newsgroups file at ftp.isc.org to search, not the
local newsgroups file.
Then you are the exception.
No, it's because I might comment on proposed newsgroups from time to
time. It's easier to find what's already been newgrouped.
But you're right that the user what find something in the local
active or newsgroups file that's not there.
Exactly that is the problem. When a group is being announced by the >administration, the user will search in the server´s group list.
Or far more likely, he'll hear of a new group because the proponent is actively promoting it and he'll be interested in posting to it.
If all server admins argumented like that, almost no new groups
could be created at all, because if nobody creates them first and
shows users that it exists, nobody will post there.
Totally and absurdly wrong.
You still don't understand the idea of a centrally administrated
hierarchy.
Because you are trolling me with your absurd claim that "hierarchy administration" is "central administration". It's false.
I keep telling you that users find out about a group because it's
being promoted. You've got your fingers in your ears.
Different people on Usenet have different roles. When the proponent
fails to perform his role, then the new group is likely to fail.
This has nothing to do with whether the hierarchy administrator has
performed his role, which is limited to sending control messages in
correct syntax. Really, that's all the hierarchy administrator does.
He is not "central administrator" of anything because Usenet lacks
central administration of any kind.
You say it is the proponents job to make the admins do that.
False. I said nothing of the kind.
The proponent strictly addresses potential users of the group, never administrators.
What if that fails because the admin has stupid reasons for not doing
it, e.g. he hates the proponent?
Hahahahahahahaha
That's a somewhat likely scenario. There are proponents with long
histories of proposing numerous newsgroups. They simply want
attention. They propose group after group after group, having no
interest at all in promoting any of them.
Judging the quality of a PROPONENT isn't a "stupid reason", Marco.
That's truly an excellent reason.
He mentions the group name in an article. The user then
requests its creation if not yet created locally, then posts to it.
Users can't find such groups in the group list and think they don't
exist.
It's a NEW GROUP. The user understands full well that it might not
have been created locally. He requests its creation.
Plenty of alt.* groups have good propagation despite the best
practice of NOT creating an alt.* group lacking a user request.
alt.* is a big mess and full of empty groups.
You're starting to convince me that your head is a big mess and full
of empty thoughts each time you address what I've written with an irrelevancy.
It doesn't cause harm to the network!
It makes it impossible that users can benefit from changes in the >>>hierarchy.
You're still wrong. This is why the proponent's job is key.
You are still not understanding that big8 is not alt.
Is that so hard?
It has gotten similar to alt.*, actually as the RFD process has
gotten, er, reformed.
I don't have a problem. You are simply wrong. A News administrator
on a foreign network isn't your employee. You don't tell him how to
offer Usenet to his users.
Technically that is true, . . .
You keep writing "technically that is true", which means that I was
correct. You then go on to contradict this by telling me that I'm
wrong despite being "technically" correct.
For me it looks like you don't want that people criticize that.
It's pointless to do so. You really refuse to grasp the concept of >>decentralized administration of Usenet, which really is one of its
best features despite what you think.
I like that there is no central authority that decides about the
posts of the users, but there must be a conclusion how to handle
things.
Despite what you falsely believe about Usenet, it works great the way
it is.
Nobody should care about a hierarchy administrator's decision
because it isn't very important.
Please stop repeating and repeating that bullshit again.
The concept of administered hierarchies is, that the administrations >decides certain things and then all servers apply it.
Interesting on topic discussion transcends everything else in an interactive medium of communication.
I know that there is no law that forces them and I don't want it, but
it is the best practice and courteous to do that.
Those administrators who don't like administrated hierarchies should
look at alt.*, that is there hierarchy for those who don't want to
have an external administration.
What makes you think they don't like a particular hierarchy? There's nothing wrong with creating a group on behalf of a user.
You seem to still not understand what the concept of an administered hierarchy is. Again: The concept is that the hierarchy is the same on
all machines carrying it and NOT that every operator creates groups as
he likes.
Those administrators are a niche, why is that so important for you?
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
[...]
It is well known that German Usenetters take their newsgroups very
seriously, even to the point of frowning on "noms de net".
It seems to me that the answer to all of Usenet's travails might be to
simply turn over all administrative duties to our German friends; they
are reputedly expert at imposing order upon chaos.
. . .
Back in July we advised the RFD's proponent about the impracticality of >changing the moderation status of a group, but it seems they decided not
to revise this clause of the RFD before submitting it for voting.
Speaking personally, I'm not bothered about the clause as I consider it
to be ineffective and therefore not binding. That is, the group's
charter notwithstanding, any subsequent change in moderation status
would not be automatic but rather would have to go through a formal RFD >process.
The proponent is of course free to withdraw the RFD and resubmit it
without the problematic moderation clause. Otherwise the Board will
vote on the RFD as-is on Friday, 29 September.
Am 24.09.2023 um 21:06:04 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
. . .
Simply look at the group list is how normal users find groups.
In a regional hierarchy, perhaps. In the Big 8 or alt.*, that's
ridiculous. There are way too many newsgroups.
I did find the groups I read that way. Because I can skip entire
hierarchies I am not interested in.
That's also why I advocate to delete all the empty groups.
You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent >>>>>>>>proponent MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP >>>>>>>>whether it's in an administered or unadministered hierarchy. >>>>>>>>Discussion doesn't just appear by magic.
True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the >>>>>>>group has been created.
Usenet doesn't require your assurances, Marco. If he does his job, >>>>>>great! You cannot make any promises about what somebody else will >>>>>>do.
He told that in the discussions. For me it looks like you don't
take the words of people serious if they are quoted.
On Usenet, what people promise to do is irrelevant. What they
actually do is what's important. If he promotes the group, great!
Then it stands a better chance of not failing.
Please stay on topic. You complained about my sentence that I would >>>"assure" that he will advertise the group.
That's literally the topic, that you cannot make a promise on behalf
of somebody else.
That is something you are saying, not me. I simply said that he wrote
that he will advocate that.
I've never promised that he will do that in all cases and I assure
that.
It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in >>>>>>>certain months". People will look after they read it, see there >>>>>>>is currently no such group and leave.
I don't know what you are talking about here. The promotion I'm >>>>>>talking about must take place AFTER the newgroup message was sent. >>>>>>Before the message was sent, the proponent finds discussion of the >>>>>>topic so he knows where to promote it. A proponent who isn't well >>>>>>known for discussing the topic on Usenet is unlikely to be a good >>>>>>proponent.
I don't agree with that. The proponent is responsible for creating >>>>>the discussion about it, not about the topic itself.
If you've never read anything that the guy has written about the
topic, why would you pay him any mind?
He might know other people who want to write in that group.
It's a matter of principle. Someone who might make a good proponent
starts off by demonstrating that he wants to discuss the topic on
Usenet by... discussing the topic on Usenet.
You see the egg-chicken problem?
That the hypothetical proponent has never done so is a very bad sign.
That no one discussing the topic even wants to be the proponent is a
huge hint that the newsgroup proposed by the hypothetical proponent is >>unnecessary.
That is you opinion about that.
. . .
It's not difficult to understand my point. We know who is discussing a >>topic on Usenet. Everything else is irrelevant. Interest in
discussing a topic is demonstrated by... discussing the topic.
That is not possible without a place to do that.
Handwaiving -- I just KNOW it will work! -- invariably leads to a
failed newsgroup.
I assume that might not be a problem for you, because empty groups are
not a problem in any way.
I advocate in deleting them, so if comp.lang.go fails, it could simply
be deleted in 2 years if it really fails.
You seem to still not understand what the concept of an administered >>>hierarchy is. Again: The concept is that the hierarchy is the same on
all machines carrying it and NOT that every operator creates groups
as he likes.
No. That's absolutely untrue.
Then explain me the concept.
For me it looks like you're having huge trouble in distinguishing
intentional anarchy (alt.*) and administered hierarchies where a central >board decides what should be done.
If your assumption would apply to most operators, the big 8 board and
dana could simply close, because every operators does what he thinks
is right and doesn't care about the big 8 decisions anyway.
The reality show that this is simply not the case for most servers.
. . .
Instead, a News administrator should care about offering a set of >>>>>>Usenet newsgroups that his own users would benefit from and act >>>>>>upon a user's request that a group be created locally.
That is entirely against the concept of administrated hierarchies
and treated as bad behavior by most users.
I don't agree. There are users who object to rmgroups -- there used
to be quite a few -- who might look for a server that won't process >>>>rmgroups and checkgroups for that reason.
For what reason?
Posting there, so almost nobody will read it?
Not everybody agrees with a hierarchy administrator's rmgrouping.
I know that, but for what purpose? . . .
. . .
What do you think about the IETF with their RfCs? . . .
You don't need to like it, but that is the common sense and all good >>>server I know do that.
Like everything else, it's not my business.
Then feel free to stay out of it, it is your freedom.
That's the beauty of distributed administration. There's independent >>decision making but a network can and does exist thanks to nothing
but syntax and canonical group names.
You're getting it wrong. If most operators decided to behave like that, >management boards like dana (for de.*) or big 8 would be ignored.
But that is simply not the case.
. . .
That would result in a big mess, like alt.*.
Lack of hierarchy administration is not what's wrong with alt.*. Lots
of useless proponents were the problem. Despite empty groups, there
have always been well-used newsgroups in alt.*. In administered >>hierarchies, there have always been failed newsgroups.
The amount of empty groups in alt is much higher than in other
hierarchies because in most times they aren't being deleted.
The proponent is not always the fault like you said, sometimes the
topic isn't being discussed there anymore, like for other groups too.
. . .
All we want the News administrator to do is create the group
with the syntactically correct name.
For that the control messages from the central administration exist.
Why don't use them?
Who says they don't?
You, all the time, when you advocated against changes because admins
don't process them anyway.
Stop abusing terminology. You are damn well aware that hierarchy >>administration isn't "central administration".
In fact, it is. . . .
. . .
I use the sample newsgroups file at ftp.isc.org to search, not the >>>>local newsgroups file.
Then you are the exception.
No, it's because I might comment on proposed newsgroups from time to
time. It's easier to find what's already been newgrouped.
Most people don't do it that way, they look for the group list of their >server and then check what is interesting.
But you're right that the user what find something in the local
active or newsgroups file that's not there.
Exactly that is the problem. When a group is being announced by the >>>administration, the user will search in the server´s group list.
Or far more likely, he'll hear of a new group because the proponent is >>actively promoting it and he'll be interested in posting to it.
Promoting it exactly where?
. . .
I keep telling you that users find out about a group because it's
being promoted. You've got your fingers in your ears.
I have never seen such promotions outside of the RfD discussions.
. . .
Different people on Usenet have different roles. When the proponent
fails to perform his role, then the new group is likely to fail.
You understand that a proponent is creating the discussion and the
board management the decision?
The idea of that decision is that server operators perform the outcome
of it and the idea is not that the proponent has to beg them and say
"Please, be so kind to provide the group".
This has nothing to do with whether the hierarchy administrator has >>performed his role, which is limited to sending control messages in
correct syntax. Really, that's all the hierarchy administrator does.
He is not "central administrator" of anything because Usenet lacks
central administration of any kind.
I think the word convention is better here. It is convention to do what
the the administration decided.
. . .
What if that fails because the admin has stupid reasons for not doing
it, e.g. he hates the proponent?
Hahahahahahahaha
That's a somewhat likely scenario. There are proponents with long
histories of proposing numerous newsgroups. They simply want
attention. They propose group after group after group, having no
interest at all in promoting any of them.
I am in Usenet since 2021, I haven't seen such behavior in the RfDs for
big 8 nor de.*.
Judging the quality of a PROPONENT isn't a "stupid reason", Marco.
That's truly an excellent reason.
But it is entirely against the idea of an administered hierarchy.
He mentions the group name in an article. The user then
requests its creation if not yet created locally, then posts to it.
Users can't find such groups in the group list and think they don't >>>exist.
It's a NEW GROUP. The user understands full well that it might not
have been created locally. He requests its creation.
It is much harder to find it when it is not available.
People are lazy and most people don't read news.groups.
. . .
You are still not understanding that big8 is not alt.
Is that so hard?
It has gotten similar to alt.*, actually as the RFD process has
gotten, er, reformed.
It is simply not true. Even if a proponent wants something, the board
can still decide against.
Most server admins care about the boar's decision and not about the >proponent's wish.
I don't have a problem. You are simply wrong. A News administrator
on a foreign network isn't your employee. You don't tell him how to >>>>offer Usenet to his users.
Technically that is true, . . .
You keep writing "technically that is true", which means that I was >>correct. You then go on to contradict this by telling me that I'm
wrong despite being "technically" correct.
There is a difference between "technically I can do whatever I want"
and "I follow certain conventions".
It is the same discussion with technical standards that are not
enforced by any law.
Everybody is free not to follow them, but most of them do for rational >reasons.
. . .
Then you must think that Google groups works great for the usenet
because is is Googles decision what they do and not the business of
anybody else.
On 2023-09-23 14:48, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
rek2 hispagatos <rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid> writes:
Ok, that "comment" about maybe in the future making it moderated is at >>>the worse case scenario, not because someone posted someone else does
not like, also as you all know making it moderated is a hard task to do >>>and maintain so, as some of you mention as long google groups is not >>>touching it the rest of us are well versed in technical and nettiquete >>>ways.
Let me make the point more clearly: it is not going to be possible to >>switch an existing non-moderated group to moderated in a reliable
way. If there is ever to be a moderated group, it needs to be a
_different_ group.
Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that was >>>just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the option >>>open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get to the >>>point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will happen) so >>>just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel better, but as you >>>guys can see that is only in a comment not really how is going to end
up.
The option of changing it to a different status basically does not
exist, and putting it in the charter that it does would be futile.
It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more than)
a couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts of spam
and off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!
Am 25.09.2023 um 16:36:35 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
. . .
It does not and cannot refer to anything to do with Usenet and
hierarchy administration.
Then explain what big-8 management or dana are.
You are under the mistaken impression that there is a hypothetical
ideal process, and that this hypothetical process can somehow overcome
all problems with the actual practice of starting a newsgroup.
No, I simply wanna say that the main problem in creating discussions in
new groups isn't convincing admins to process control messages (most of
the do it anyway).
The number of newsgroups is unimportant.
Then it should be fine to create thousands of empty groups.
. . .
The proponent is not always the fault like you said, sometimes the
topic isn't being discussed there anymore, like for other groups
too.
That's the biggest example there is of a lousy proponent. If there's
no discussion on Usenet, then the group is unnecessary.
That's why advocate for deleting such groups. . . .
. . .
You don't have real arguments for not processing control messages on a >general purpose server.
A hierarchy administrator's rmgroup message DOES NOT universally
remove a newsgroup.
Usenet, whose administration is decentralized, does not and cannot
work like that. That you personally disapprove of News sites that
won't act on control messages is an absurd position given that those
News administrators run Usenet.
None of them work for you.
You cannot tell them what to do.
The word "central" is being abused by you.
It does not and cannot refer to anything to do with Usenet and
hierarchy administration.
You are under the mistaken impression that there is a hypothetical
ideal process, and that this hypothetical process can somehow overcome
all problems with the actual practice of starting a newsgroup.
The number of newsgroups is unimportant.
Not everybody agrees with a hierarchy administrator's rmgrouping.
I know that, but for what purpose? . . .
Hey, Marco? It's long past time for you to stop second guessing how a
News administrator presents Usenet to his own users. Your nonstop need
to question the choices made by people who are in charge and don't
answer to you is irrelevant.
You don't need to like it, but that is the common sense and all
good server I know do that.
Like everything else, it's not my business.
Then feel free to stay out of it, it is your freedom.
I am literally out of it, same as you.
That would result in a big mess, like alt.*.
Lack of hierarchy administration is not what's wrong with alt.*.
Lots of useless proponents were the problem. Despite empty groups,
there have always been well-used newsgroups in alt.*. In
administered hierarchies, there have always been failed newsgroups.
The amount of empty groups in alt is much higher than in other
hierarchies because in most times they aren't being deleted.
You've truly got your fingers in your ears. I just stated what the fundamental problem was. You deliberately MISSTATED it in an
irrelevancy. In an unadministered hierarchy, by definition, there is
no hierarchy administrator. There is no checkgroups sent by a
hierarchy administrator. There is no hierarchy administrator to prune
alt.* groups.
That sentence was entirely irrelevant to alt.*.
Your position that empty newsgroups should be pruned is irrelevant.
You justified it with the ridiculous notion that a user looking for a
group to subscribe to won't perform a key word search, that he'll
just look at the entire list without searching it all all. Even on a
small public News server, that list is going to be thousands of
newsgroups long.
The proponent is not always the fault like you said, sometimes the
topic isn't being discussed there anymore, like for other groups
too.
That's the biggest example there is of a lousy proponent. If there's
no discussion on Usenet, then the group is unnecessary.
There's always a broader newsgroup or a miscellaneous newsgroup (especially in the Big 8) in which to hold that discussion.
The number of newsgroups is unimportant.
Thanks to the decentralized nature of Usenet, he is under no
obligation to process a control message upon issuance.
Everybody is free not to follow them, but most of them do for
rational reasons.
You neither know nor understand what the reason was. You don't get to
declare the action rational or irrational. You don't run things. You
are irrelevant. Your opinion of how a site is run is irrelevant.
The most likely reason is that he's made a thoughtful decision about
which groups to offer his user. That's entirely different than the
only reason you believe is rational, that checkgroups should be
processed just because it's checkgroups.
In making that thoughtful decision he may very well decide NOT to
process checkgroups, which you would deem irrational. Fortunately for
Usenet and its decentralized administration, both you and your opinion
are irrelevant.
I've said this repeatedly. Stop misstating my opinion when you already
know what it is. You do this because you don't have an argument.
Or far more likely, he'll hear of a new group because the proponent is
actively promoting it and he'll be interested in posting to it.
Promoting it exactly where?
Promoting it where discussion is already taking place. That's why it's critical for the proponent to be well known for discussing the topic and
to learn where discussion is already taking place on Usenet.
On 9/25/2023 11:36 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Or far more likely, he'll hear of a new group because the proponent is >>>> actively promoting it and he'll be interested in posting to it.
Promoting it exactly where?
Promoting it where discussion is already taking place. That's why it's
critical for the proponent to be well known for discussing the topic and
to learn where discussion is already taking place on Usenet.
Adam, I'd like to remind you of a recent event.
Not so long ago, E-S finally removed the majority of the Microsoft
groups, as it had been years and years since MS announced they were
shutting down their participation and their server. One of the groups
was operating system XP something or another. Both alt.windows7.general
and alt.comp.os.windows-10 had a large amount of discussion on having a
group for XP only discussion. Though most of the discussion was
complaining about Ray's removal and threatening to go elsewhere since
other administrators still carried the groups. A case could be made
that XP discussion could be sustained in either of those groups and a
new XP group was unnecessary, and in fact that does happen now.
However, the amount of people who voiced disapproval of losing the group
and would have used a new group, likely would have known of it because
of the discussion going on in those groups if it would have happened.
In the end it was all talk because nobody was willing to be a proponent
and go through the creation process. It simply died.
Point is, I completely agree with you and this discussion on XP, though >futile, was far greater than the limited discussion I've seen on the new
GO group which has amounted to little more than "me too, I'd read it"
posts.
BTW, I also completely agree about eliminating so called unused groups.
Many times I've gone and tried to find something written years ago that
I remembered. I understand the need for some to think doing something
like this might help the health of usenet, but agree the only thing that >helps is people starting talk and using it. Removing anything should be
done with extreme caution.
It is well known that German Usenetters take their newsgroups very seriously, even to the point of frowning on "noms de net".
I can see an abuse complaint coming my way from an aspiring apprentice netKKKop already.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 80:47:49 |
| Calls: | 6,696 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,229 |
| Messages: | 5,347,746 |