Morris Dovey wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Morris Dovey wrote:
> >
> >> It would appear that New York State's Attorney General Cuomo has
> >> determined that usenet groups like alt.solar.* and alt.energy.* are a
> >> corrupting influence to the citizens of his state. The article at
> >>
> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html
> >>
> >> is worth taking a minute or two to read and think about, even if you're
> >> not from the Empire State.
> >
> > Time Warner Cable said it will cease to offer customers access to any Usenet
> > newsgroups, a decision that will affect customers nationwide. Sprint said it
> > would no longer offer any of the tens of thousands of alt.* Usenet
> > newsgroups. Verizon's plan is to eliminate some "fairly broad newsgroup
> > areas."
> >
> > Nationwide !
> Exactly so, even though Cuomo's juristiction is limited to New York. It
> would appear that he'd like to promote New York as the "Bad Apple" that
> spoiled the whole bushel [apologies for the pun].
> Time Warner, Sprint, and Verizon will not succeed in making nntp
> disappear from the world - and even if they elected to not support the
> protocol on their networks, their bandwidth requirements might skyrocket
> if usenet traffic entering their domains mad to be twisted into and out
> of http.
Since all of above are thinking mainly in terms of dropping the alt.* groups
(aside from Time Warner who plann to drop Usnet entirely and I hope that costs
them plenty of customers), my suggestion would be to have a flood of 'newgroup'
requests to move the serious 'alts' to the 'big 8'. In most instances I'm sure a
suitable fit can be found.
The alts AIUI only ever existed to simplify the newgroup process.
I found this info, you may find interesting. I haven't fully digested it myself
yet.
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/doc/zen/zen-1.0_15.html
Newsgroup Creation
Everyone has the opportunity to make a Call For Votes on the Usenet and attempt
to
create a newsgroup that he/she feels would be of benefit to the general
readership. The rules governing newsgroup creation have evolved over the years
into a generally accepted method. They only govern the ``world'' groups; they
aren't applicable to regional or other alternative hierarchies.
Discussion
A discussion must first take place to address issues like the naming of the
group,
where in the group tree it should go (e.g. rec.sports.koosh vs rec.games.koosh?),
and whether or not it should be created in the first place. The formal Request
For
Discussion (RFD) should be posted to news.announce.newgroups, along with any
other
groups or mailing lists at all related to the proposed topic.
news.announce.newgroups is moderated. You should place it first in the
Newsgroups:
header, so that it will get mailed to the moderator only. The article won't be
immediately posted to the other newsgroups listed; rather, it will give you the
opportunity to have the moderator correct any inconsistencies or mistakes in your
RFD. He or she will take care of posting it to the newsgroups you indicated. Also
the Followup-To: header will be set so that the actual discussion takes place
only
in news.groups. If a user has difficulty posting to a moderated group, he or she
may mail submissions intended for news.announce.newgroups to the address
announce-newgroups@rpi.edu.
The final name and charter of the group, and whether it will be moderated or
unmoderated, will be determined during the discussion period. If it's to be
moderated, the discussion will also decide who the moderator will be. If there's
no general agreement on these points among those in favor of a new group at the
end of 30 days, the discussion will be taken into mail rather than continued
posting to news.groups; that way, the proponents of the group can iron out their
differences and come back with a proper proposal, and make a new Request For
Discussion.
Voting
After the discussion period (which is mandatory), if it's been determined that a
new group really is desired, a name and charter are agreed upon, and it's been
determined whether the group will be moderated (and by whom), a Call For Votes
(CFV) should be posted to news.announce.newgroups, along with any other groups
that the original Request For Discussion was posted to. The CFV should be posted
(or mailed to the news.announce.newgroups moderator) as soon as possible after
the
discussion ends (to keep it fresh in everyone's mind).
The Call for Votes should include clear instructions on how to cast a vote. It's
important that it be clearly explained how to both vote for and against a group
(and be of equivalent difficulty or ease). If it's easier for you or your
administrator, two separate addresses can be used to mail yes and no votes to,
providing that they're on the same machine. Regardless of the method, everyone
must have a very specific idea of how to get his/her vote counted.
The voting period can last between 21 and 31 days, no matter what the preliminary
results of the vote are. A vote can't be called off simply because 400 ``no''
votes have come in and only two ``yes'' votes. The Call for Votes should include
the exact date that the voting period will end---only those votes arriving on the
vote-taker's machine before this date can be counted.
To keep awareness high, the CFV can be repeated during the vote, provided that it
gives the same clear, unbiased instructions for casting a vote as the original;
it
also has to be the same proposal as was first posted. The charter can't change in
mid-vote. Also, votes that're posted don't count---only those that were mailed to
the vote-taker can be tallied.
Partial results should never be included; only a statement of the specific
proposal, that a vote is in progress on it, and how to cast a vote. A mass
acknowledgement (``Mass ACK'' or ``Vote ACK'') is permitted; however, it must be
presented in a way that gives no indication of which way a person voted. One way
to avoid this is to create one large list of everyone who's voted, and sort it in
alphabetical order. It should not be two sorted lists (of the yes and no votes,
respectively).
Every vote is autonomous. The votes for or against one group can't be transferred
to another, similar proposal. A vote can only count for the exact proposal that
it
was a response to. In particular, a vote for or against a newsgroup under one
name
can't be counted as a vote for or against another group with a different name or
charter, a different moderated/unmoderated status, or, if it's moderated, a
different moderator or set of moderators. Whew!
Finally, the vote has to be explicit; they should be of the form I vote for the
group foo.bar as proposed or I vote against the group foo.bar as proposed. The
wording doesn't have to be exact, your intention just has to be clear.
The Result of a Vote
At the end of the voting period, the vote-taker has to post (to
news.announce.newgroups) the tally and email addresses of the votes received.
Again, it can also be posted to any of the groups listed in the original CFV. The
tally should make clear which way a person voted, so the results can be verified
if it proves necessary to do so.
After the vote result is posted to news.announce.newgroups, there is a mandatory
five-day waiting period. This affords everyone the opportunity to correct any
errors or inconsistencies in the voter list or the voting procedure.
Creation of the Group
If, after the waiting period, there are no serious objections that might
invalidate the vote, the vote is put to the ``water test.'' If there were 100
more
valid YES/create votes than NO/don't create votes, and at least two-thirds of the
total number of votes are in favor of creation, then a newgroup control message
can be sent out (often by the moderator of news.announce.newgroups). If the
100-vote margin or the two-thirds percentage isn't met, the group has failed and
can't be created.
If the proposal failed, all is not lost---after a six-month waiting period (a
``cooling down''), a new Request For Discussion can be posted to news.groups, and
the whole process can start over again. If after a couple of tries it becomes
obvious that the group is not wanted or needed, the vote-taker should humbly step
back and accept the opinion of the majority. (As life goes, so goes Usenet.)
Graham
XML site map
> determined that usenet groups like alt.solar.* and alt.energy.* are a
> corrupting influence to the citizens of his state. The article at
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html
> is worth taking a minute or two to read and think about, even if you're
> not from the Empire State.