Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  nodelist  faq  login

The nicest thing about the Alto is that it doesn't run faster at night.


computers / news.admin.hierarchies / Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals

SubjectAuthor
* Modern administration of creation and removal proposalsJulien_ÉLIE
+* Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposalsAdam H. Kerman
|`- Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposalsJulien_ÉLIE
+* Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposalsMatthew Vernon
|`* Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposalsJulien_ÉLIE
| `- Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposalsMatthew Vernon
`* Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposalsThomas Hochstein
 +- Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposalsAdam H. Kerman
 `* Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposalsJulien_ÉLIE
  +* Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposalsThomas Hochstein
  |`- Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposalsJulien_ÉLIE
  `* Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposalsNeodome Admin
   `- Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposalsJulien_ÉLIE

1
Subject: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
From: Julien_ÉLIE
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies, news.admin.misc
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 13:04 UTC
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.trigofacile.com!.POSTED.2a01cb0800a77500440389f35dbc5b0e.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr!not-for-mail
From: iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid (Julien_ÉLIE)
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies,news.admin.misc
Subject: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 14:04:46 +0100
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
Message-ID: <rqiktk$hpg$1@news.trigofacile.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 13:04:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.trigofacile.com; posting-account="julien"; posting-host="2a01cb0800a77500440389f35dbc5b0e.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr:2a01:cb08:a7:7500:4403:89f3:5dbc:5b0e";
logging-data="18224"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@trigofacile.com"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1
X-Mozilla-News-Host: snews://news.individual.net:563
Content-Language: fr
View all headers
Hi all,

The last checkgroups sent for the fr.* hierarchy was in 2014, along with the creation of a newsgroup.
In January 2020, a vote leaded to the creation of a new newsgroup. There were 8 pros and 3 cons.  No control article has been sent yet because it seems that the public key has been lost since 2014.  But well, that's another point, and we'll deal with that via the generation of a new modern PGP key and its progressive update in news servers.

In parallel of that, we're discussing in the fr.* hierarchy potential new rules to create/remove newsgroups, and I reckon it should be interesting to share best current practices in other hierarchies.

- Do you still use votes by mails?
Or votes directly in an admin newsgroup, in response to the article asking to vote?  or, even more "modern", a Doodle-like vote?
Note that votes are public in the fr.* hierarchy (and not reserved to a Board like what is done for the Big-8).

- Do you still have a threshold?
In the 2000s, we asked for 80 YES more than NO, which is obviously impossible today.  We only had 11 votes in January 2020...

- How to prevent "unwanted" changes, if the processus is laxed?
I see that de.alt.* allows the creation of a newsgroup if "the protest was not too violent" (according to Google Translate) after a usual period of 7 days.  But what is the definition of "too violent"?  Does that rule work in practice?

- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of a newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?


We would like to make the creation and removal of fr.* newsgroups more fluid, but defining the process is tricky...
Any thoughts or advices about it according to your experience in other hierarchies?

--
Julien ÉLIE

« The hardest thing is to go to sleep at night, when there are so many
   urgent things needing to be done.  A huge gap exists between what we
   know is possible with today's machines and what we have so far been
   able to finish. »  (Donald Knuth)


Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
From: Adam H. Kerman
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies, news.admin.misc
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 18:33 UTC
References: 1
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ahk...@chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman)
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 18:33:11 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <rqj857$ngv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <rqiktk$hpg$1@news.trigofacile.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 18:33:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1c6b14aa4307a8c0af089c908ed74dc0";
logging-data="24095"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/mhJcwT34PuXJr0heC2FWWnjjbE2XgVzo="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WncxgoSVbKATpUWXBY+XXj6PyfA=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
View all headers
Julien Julien ELIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:

The last checkgroups sent for the fr.* hierarchy was in 2014, along with
the creation of a newsgroup.
In January 2020, a vote leaded to the creation of a new newsgroup.
There were 8 pros and 3 cons.  No control article has been sent yet
because it seems that the public key has been lost since 2014.  But
well, that's another point, and we'll deal with that via the generation
of a new modern PGP key and its progressive update in news servers.

In parallel of that, we're discussing in the fr.* hierarchy potential
new rules to create/remove newsgroups, and I reckon it should be
interesting to share best current practices in other hierarchies.

Julien, there has been no change since the beginning of Usenet. With a
mere 8 supporters, even if they were regularly discussing the topic on
Usenet (they probably weren't), that's not enough to sustain a newsgroup.

The only way to infer that a proposed newsgroup might be worth starting
is to look at how and where the discussion of the topic is currently
taking place, and whether those discussing the topic are highly
motivated to change their posting habits in favor of the proposed
newsgroup.

Furthermore, the proponent himself needs to be someone well known for
discussing the topic.

- Do you still use votes by mails?
Or votes directly in an admin newsgroup, in response to the article
asking to vote?  or, even more "modern", a Doodle-like vote?
Note that votes are public in the fr.* hierarchy (and not reserved to a
Board like what is done for the Big-8).

- Do you still have a threshold?
In the 2000s, we asked for 80 YES more than NO, which is obviously
impossible today.  We only had 11 votes in January 2020...

As there is no interest in voting, eliminate voting. Plenty of language
and regional hierarchies have never had voting.

chi.* added newsgroups on consensus. For decades, there was never enough
discussion to start any new groups, and the consensus was pretty much
to use chi.general for most discussions. chi.politics became little more
than crossposted full-text copyright plagarism from political articles
reposted from the Web, with no local discussion. One by one, the other
groups died as there were fewer and fewer Usenet posters.

- How to prevent "unwanted" changes, if the processus is laxed?
I see that de.alt.* allows the creation of a newsgroup if "the protest
was not too violent" (according to Google Translate) after a usual
period of 7 days.  But what is the definition of "too violent"?  Does
that rule work in practice?

- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of a
newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?

There's just no reason to start the newsgroup in the first place if
failure is highly likely.

rmgroup messages as a hierarchy administration management technique
don't work. Given that Usenet is decentralized, there's no control
over News administraition. There are still plenty of News servers that
won't process rmgroup nor checkgroup messages.

It's kind of a bad idea to take the attitude of Let's try it because we
can always send the rmgroup message later! How is the proponent motivated
to avoid failure?

A better idea is to start with a proponent who is highly motivated to
work to promote the group till it's successful, which can take a good
six months if it's possible at all.

Motivated promotion means the proponent spends months looking for
discussion taking place on that topic in other newsgroups and asks those
posters to try the proposed group. He has to let them know that they
must request that the group be created locally if his News administrator
hasn't done so. This is critical in alt.* of course but even with a
managed hierarchy with signed control messages, the proponent can never
sit on his hands assuming that every server allows such control messages
to be processed without intervention. Your small News server with a
small number of users propably creates new groups upon request only.

With your typical proponent who has almost never posted on the topic and
isn't the least bit motivated to get the group going, failure is likely
in the extreme. That's the kind of proponent who should never be encouraged.

The reasons 10s of thousands of proposed newsgroups typically fail to
find an audience is 1) lack of discussion and 2) proponent who could
care less.

We would like to make the creation and removal of fr.* newsgroups more
fluid, but defining the process is tricky...
Any thoughts or advices about it according to your experience in other
hierarchies?

New groups do not attract new discussion to Usenet. It's more important to
get discussion going on the topic of interest. Once there is sustainable
discussion, then the decision can be made about breaking it off into a
new group. But make sure there is sufficient discussion in the general
newsgroup for fr.* or another newsgroup in which French is used first.

Remember that we recommended to alt.* proponents not to send a newgroup
message if there isn't an average of 10 articles a day in which the
topic is discussed, looking back over 90 days? Crossposting isn't
discussion. Plagarizing an article from the Web isn't discussion.

Discussion of the topic is the important bit. Having a highly motivated
proponent is the important bit. Just discussing the idea of discussing
the topic in a proposed group is the irrelevant bit.

Either the topic is being discussed on Usenet, or it's not.

Nothing has changed.


Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
From: Julien_ÉLIE
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies, news.admin.misc
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 20:19 UTC
References: 1 2
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.trigofacile.com!.POSTED.2a01cb0800a7750030387136548651b5.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr!not-for-mail
From: iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid (Julien_ÉLIE)
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 21:19:54 +0100
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
Message-ID: <rqm2pa$h1b$1@news.trigofacile.com>
References: <rqiktk$hpg$1@news.trigofacile.com> <rqj857$ngv$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 20:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.trigofacile.com; posting-account="julien"; posting-host="2a01cb0800a7750030387136548651b5.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr:2a01:cb08:a7:7500:3038:7136:5486:51b5";
logging-data="17451"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@trigofacile.com"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1
In-Reply-To: <rqj857$ngv$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: fr
View all headers
Hi Adam,

Motivated promotion means the proponent spends months looking for
discussion taking place on that topic in other newsgroups and asks those
posters to try the proposed group.
[...]> The reasons 10s of thousands of proposed newsgroups typically fail to
find an audience is 1) lack of discussion and 2) proponent who could
care less.

Unfortunately.


We would like to make the creation and removal of fr.* newsgroups more
fluid, but defining the process is tricky...
Any thoughts or advices about it according to your experience in other
hierarchies?

New groups do not attract new discussion to Usenet. It's more important to
get discussion going on the topic of interest. Once there is sustainable
discussion, then the decision can be made about breaking it off into a
new group. But make sure there is sufficient discussion in the general
newsgroup for fr.* or another newsgroup in which French is used first.
[...]
Discussion of the topic is the important bit. Having a highly motivated
proponent is the important bit. Just discussing the idea of discussing
the topic in a proposed group is the irrelevant bit.

Either the topic is being discussed on Usenet, or it's not.

Many thanks for having shared these wise thoughts.
One often forgets that mere fact, when focusing only on the process.

I've mentioned your response in the current discussions in the fr.* hierarchy.  I hope it will inspire us!

--
Julien ÉLIE

« C'est la première fois que je vois traiter une affaire avec autant de
   punch ! » (Astérix)


Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
From: Matthew Vernon
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies, news.admin.misc
Organization: A header line that ends up very out of date
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:22 UTC
References: 1
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!nntp.terraraq.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: matt...@debian.org (Matthew Vernon)
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:22:54 +0000
Organization: A header line that ends up very out of date
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <np34kkwwhxt.fsf@sanger.ac.uk>
References: <rqiktk$hpg$1@news.trigofacile.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chiark.greenend.org.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: chiark.greenend.org.uk 1607433808 22252 212.13.197.229 (8 Dec 2020 13:23:28 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@chiark.greenend.org.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:23:28 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zlFVVep9jIWgWz+vpisuplkhI4Q=
Originator: @sanger-morgan-nat.sanger.ac.uk ([193.62.205.6])
View all headers
Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:

In parallel of that, we're discussing in the fr.* hierarchy potential
new rules to create/remove newsgroups, and I reckon it should be
interesting to share best current practices in other hierarchies.

All your questions about uk.* are addressed on our webpage:
http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html

But, more briefly:

- Do you still use votes by mails?
Yes

- Do you still have a threshold?
No

- How to prevent "unwanted" changes, if the processus is laxed?
We have a fast-track process for uncontroversial changes, but any 6
objections (or 1 that the Committee feels well-founded) stops the
fast-track, and then a vote is needed.

- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of a
newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?
No

uk.* relies on ukvoting volunteers to run our votes, and I don't know
how medium-term sustainable that is.

Matthew
[definitely speaking without any official hat on]
--
 `O'-----0     `O'---.       `O'---.       `O'---.
   \___| |       \___|0-/      \___|/        \___|
    |  | /\       |  |  \       |  |\         |  |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life


Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
From: Julien_ÉLIE
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies, news.admin.misc
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:45 UTC
References: 1 2
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.trigofacile.com!.POSTED.2a01cb0800a7750058ae872f35e72a69.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr!not-for-mail
From: iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid (Julien_ÉLIE)
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 20:45:31 +0100
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
Message-ID: <rqr9gr$3h7$1@news.trigofacile.com>
References: <rqiktk$hpg$1@news.trigofacile.com> <np34kkwwhxt.fsf@sanger.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:45:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.trigofacile.com; posting-account="julien"; posting-host="2a01cb0800a7750058ae872f35e72a69.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr:2a01:cb08:a7:7500:58ae:872f:35e7:2a69";
logging-data="3623"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@trigofacile.com"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1
In-Reply-To: <np34kkwwhxt.fsf@sanger.ac.uk>
Content-Language: fr
View all headers
Hi Matthew,

All your questions about uk.* are addressed on our webpage:
http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html

Thanks for the pointer.  Very well described; I even see a "Quick creation" request with 11 supporters.


- How to prevent "unwanted" changes, if the processus is laxed?
We have a fast-track process for uncontroversial changes, but any 6
objections (or 1 that the Committee feels well-founded) stops the
fast-track, and then a vote is needed.

Do you happen to know how the number 6 was chosen?
The notion of "well-founded" is also easy to define objectively...

--
Julien ÉLIE

« J'oubliais qu'Assurancetourix a une nouvelle corde à sa harpe ! »
   (Astérix)


Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
From: Thomas Hochstein
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 12:31 UTC
References: 1
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!thangorodrim.ancalagon.de!.POSTED.meneldor-wifi.ancalagon.de!not-for-mail
From: thh...@thh.name (Thomas Hochstein)
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies
Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 13:31:26 +0100
Message-ID: <nah.2012121331.250@meneldor.ancalagon.de>
References: <rqiktk$hpg$1@news.trigofacile.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: thangorodrim.ancalagon.de; posting-host="meneldor-wifi.ancalagon.de:10.0.1.108";
logging-data="32298"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@th-h.de"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 Hamster/2.1.0.1539
X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 13:40:22 +0100
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Cancel-Lock: sha1:z11XZht1yRbsnBE/yNYRTiVUzoQ=
View all headers
(Speaking for de.*)

Julien ÉLIE wrote:

- Do you still use votes by mails?

Yes, we do.

The voting part has mostly been done exclusively by the German
Volunteer Votetakers (GVV) for the last two decades, although that's
not a requirement.

- Do you still have a threshold?

We still require at least 50 YES votes (at least 60 until 2012), and a
2/3 majority.

In the 2000s, we asked for 80 YES more than NO, which is obviously
impossible today.  We only had 11 votes in January 2020...

We don't have that many - really, any ... - creation or removal
proposals any more. From 2011-2013 we had quite a lot of removal
proposals (a bit of housekeeping), and the threshold was not that of a
problem. The last vote ever - up to today - was 2018 and passed the
threshold.

Today, the threshold could be a real problem - we'll see if and when
we get a proposal (and put it to the vote).

- How to prevent "unwanted" changes, if the processus is laxed?
I see that de.alt.* allows the creation of a newsgroup if "the protest
was not too violent" (according to Google Translate) after a usual
period of 7 days.  But what is the definition of "too violent"?

That definition is, of course, controversial. :)

It's mostly a combination of "well-founded" and "vocal", I think;
where de.* (without de.alt.*) has a voting system, de.alt.* relies on
consensus.

Does that rule work in practice?

It did, most times, perhaps also due to the fact that de.* is a
managed hierarchy with monthly signed checkgroups, so all de.alt.*
groups have to be part of the checkgroups for de.* to really get
propagated [1]. The moderation of de.admin.news.announce, which is
responsible for the checkgroups messages, therefore has to play the
referee in case of disagreement and decide disputes about group
creations (and deletions).

I'm not sure it would work today (the last deletion was 2104, I think,
the last creation 2011). Consensus-based systems seem to require more
knowledge, participation and, yes, goodwill and acceptance than simply
voting.

[1] One could use scoped checkgroups instead, but that failed
spectacularly in 2000 and has not been tested again since.

- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of a
newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?

No. "Removed" groups tend to stay around.

We would like to make the creation and removal of fr.* newsgroups more
fluid, but defining the process is tricky...

It is.

The process used for de.* has mostly worked well, I think, but with
with today's user numbers - and the declining interest in text-based
Usenet overall - a system along the lines of the Big8 would probably
be preferable: proposals, discussion, perhaps a non-binding poll
leading to a decision of a decision making body.

Otherwise, what Adam said in <rqj857$ngv$1@dont-email.me> ... but
there just aren't that many postings any more. [2]

[2] Of 377 newsgroups in de.*, just about 25-30 get more than 200
posts per month (~ 7-10/day). Some hundred (nearly) empty groups
should have been removed for years, I think, but why bother?

Regards,
-thh


Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
From: Adam H. Kerman
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 20:05 UTC
References: 1 2
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ahk...@chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman)
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies
Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 20:05:59 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <rr37r7$hqd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <rqiktk$hpg$1@news.trigofacile.com> <nah.2012121331.250@meneldor.ancalagon.de>
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 20:05:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="208bc4d3d73c082ecfadf99c5a4215f9";
logging-data="18253"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qpuwoc0gev98KEM0M071MGqflsw2lnTo="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BegiTMCnWkqSah9rCeTfOk/Ytbo=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
View all headers
Thomas Hochstein <thh@thh.name> wrote:

(Speaking for de.*)

Julien ELIE wrote:

- Do you still use votes by mails?

Yes, we do.

The voting part has mostly been done exclusively by the German
Volunteer Votetakers (GVV) for the last two decades, although that's
not a requirement.

- Do you still have a threshold?

We still require at least 50 YES votes (at least 60 until 2012), and a
2/3 majority.

In the 2000s, we asked for 80 YES more than NO, which is obviously
impossible today.  We only had 11 votes in January 2020...

We don't have that many - really, any ... - creation or removal
proposals any more. From 2011-2013 we had quite a lot of removal
proposals (a bit of housekeeping), and the threshold was not that of a
problem. The last vote ever - up to today - was 2018 and passed the
threshold.

Today, the threshold could be a real problem - we'll see if and when
we get a proposal (and put it to the vote).

- How to prevent "unwanted" changes, if the processus is laxed?
I see that de.alt.* allows the creation of a newsgroup if "the protest
was not too violent" (according to Google Translate) after a usual
period of 7 days.  But what is the definition of "too violent"?

That definition is, of course, controversial. :)

It's mostly a combination of "well-founded" and "vocal", I think;
where de.* (without de.alt.*) has a voting system, de.alt.* relies on
consensus.

Does that rule work in practice?

It did, most times, perhaps also due to the fact that de.* is a
managed hierarchy with monthly signed checkgroups, so all de.alt.*
groups have to be part of the checkgroups for de.* to really get
propagated [1]. The moderation of de.admin.news.announce, which is
responsible for the checkgroups messages, therefore has to play the
referee in case of disagreement and decide disputes about group
creations (and deletions).

I'm not sure it would work today (the last deletion was 2104, I think,
the last creation 2011). Consensus-based systems seem to require more
knowledge, participation and, yes, goodwill and acceptance than simply
voting.

[1] One could use scoped checkgroups instead, but that failed
spectacularly in 2000 and has not been tested again since.

- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of a
newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?

No. "Removed" groups tend to stay around.

We would like to make the creation and removal of fr.* newsgroups more
fluid, but defining the process is tricky...

It is.

The process used for de.* has mostly worked well, I think, but with
with today's user numbers - and the declining interest in text-based
Usenet overall - a system along the lines of the Big8 would probably
be preferable: proposals, discussion, perhaps a non-binding poll
leading to a decision of a decision making body.

The problem with the Big8 model is that the proponent isn't expected to
do any real work, which results in just exactly what you expect: A group
that all too few want to use that will likely not have sustainable
traffic in it.

That's why I argue for the alt.* model: Proponent is expected to do the
work of publicizing the group and finding Usenet users who will request
its creation locally, and who want to discuss the topic.

Otherwise, what Adam said in <rqj857$ngv$1@dont-email.me> ... but
there just aren't that many postings any more. [2]

[2] Of 377 newsgroups in de.*, just about 25-30 get more than 200
posts per month (~ 7-10/day). Some hundred (nearly) empty groups
should have been removed for years, I think, but why bother?

Chris Caputo and several others will never remove them. They'll exist
somewhere. Might as well continue to recognize them.


Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
From: Matthew Vernon
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies, news.admin.misc
Organization: A header line that ends up very out of date
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:36 UTC
References: 1 2 3
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.etla.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: matt...@debian.org (Matthew Vernon)
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:36:32 +0000
Organization: A header line that ends up very out of date
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <np3mtyguyy7.fsf@sanger.ac.uk>
References: <rqiktk$hpg$1@news.trigofacile.com> <np34kkwwhxt.fsf@sanger.ac.uk>
<rqr9gr$3h7$1@news.trigofacile.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chiark.greenend.org.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: chiark.greenend.org.uk 1607963825 11205 212.13.197.229 (14 Dec 2020 16:37:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@chiark.greenend.org.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:37:05 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aW1wQKJ2kpJj8A/YpVCdzXpPi7w=
Originator: @sanger-morgan-nat.sanger.ac.uk ([193.62.205.6])
View all headers
Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:

Hi Matthew,

All your questions about uk.* are addressed on our webpage:
http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html

Thanks for the pointer.  Very well described; I even see a "Quick
creation" request with 11 supporters.


- How to prevent "unwanted" changes, if the processus is laxed?
We have a fast-track process for uncontroversial changes, but any 6
objections (or 1 that the Committee feels well-founded) stops the
fast-track, and then a vote is needed.

Do you happen to know how the number 6 was chosen?

I'm afraid not - that predates my involvement in uk.* governance.

The notion of "well-founded" is also easy to define objectively...

Well, yes, that's why there's an elected Committee who is entrusted with
adjudicating.

Matthew

--
 `O'-----0     `O'---.       `O'---.       `O'---.
   \___| |       \___|0-/      \___|/        \___|
    |  | /\       |  |  \       |  |\         |  |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life


Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
From: Julien_ÉLIE
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies
Organization: Groupes francophones par TrigoFACILE
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 19:45 UTC
References: 1 2
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.trigofacile.com!.POSTED.2a01cb0800a77500a42486988d59207d.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr!not-for-mail
From: iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid (Julien_ÉLIE)
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies
Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 20:45:57 +0100
Organization: Groupes francophones par TrigoFACILE
Message-ID: <rt2fll$u4i$1@news.trigofacile.com>
References: <rqiktk$hpg$1@news.trigofacile.com>
<nah.2012121331.250@meneldor.ancalagon.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 19:45:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.trigofacile.com; posting-account="julien"; posting-host="2a01cb0800a77500a42486988d59207d.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr:2a01:cb08:a7:7500:a424:8698:8d59:207d";
logging-data="30866"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@trigofacile.com"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
In-Reply-To: <nah.2012121331.250@meneldor.ancalagon.de>
Content-Language: fr
View all headers
Hi Thomas,

In the 2000s, we asked for 80 YES more than NO, which is obviously
impossible today.  We only had 11 votes in January 2020...

We don't have that many - really, any ... - creation or removal
proposals any more. From 2011-2013 we had quite a lot of removal
proposals (a bit of housekeeping), and the threshold was not that of a
problem. The last vote ever - up to today - was 2018 and passed the
threshold.

Today, the threshold could be a real problem - we'll see if and when
we get a proposal (and put it to the vote).

Many thanks for your insight on the German-speaking hierarchy.  Very appreciated.


One could use scoped checkgroups instead, but that failed
spectacularly in 2000 and has not been tested again since.

And I believe it will still fail nowadays...
Even INN still does not support the scope and serial number features for checkgroups, described in the latest USEPRO RFC (5537).  Still in to-do, as well as authenticated Path header fields...


- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of a
newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?

No. "Removed" groups tend to stay around.

Unfortunately.  At least if they were in an "archive" state, without any new post, that would be better.


Of 377 newsgroups in de.*, just about 25-30 get more than 200
posts per month (~ 7-10/day). Some hundred (nearly) empty groups
should have been removed for years, I think, but why bother?

Do you know whether that nearly hundred empty groups still have readers?   There's a difference between an empty newsgroup in which a new post will be answered, and an empty newsgroup in which a new post will stay unanswered...

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Impossible n'est pas gaulois, les amis ! » (Distributiondesprix)


Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
From: Thomas Hochstein
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 15:10 UTC
References: 1 2 3
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!thangorodrim.ancalagon.de!.POSTED.meneldor-wifi.ancalagon.de!not-for-mail
From: thh...@thh.name (Thomas Hochstein)
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies
Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 16:10:09 +0100
Message-ID: <nah.2101081610.25@meneldor.ancalagon.de>
References: <rqiktk$hpg$1@news.trigofacile.com> <nah.2012121331.250@meneldor.ancalagon.de> <rt2fll$u4i$1@news.trigofacile.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: thangorodrim.ancalagon.de; posting-host="meneldor-wifi.ancalagon.de:10.0.1.108";
logging-data="23144"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@th-h.de"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 Hamster/2.1.0.1539
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MxmWtsEAmf6ouLrwzykdlalYrgg=
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 16:11:02 +0100
View all headers
Julien ÉLIE schrieb:

Many thanks for your insight on the German-speaking hierarchy.  Very
appreciated.

You're welcome. :)

Many thanks for your work on INN (and a new key for fr.*)!

Of 377 newsgroups in de.*, just about 25-30 get more than 200
posts per month (~ 7-10/day). Some hundred (nearly) empty groups
should have been removed for years, I think, but why bother?

Do you know whether that nearly hundred empty groups still have readers?

No easy way to check that. :)

  There's a difference between an empty newsgroup in which a new post
will be answered, and an empty newsgroup in which a new post will stay
unanswered...

Yes, I concur. But IMHO an empty group that _stays_ empty for months
and years does not serve a purpose any longer, too. YMMV (and oh boy
are there dissenting opinions about that ;)).

-thh


Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
From: Julien_ÉLIE
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies
Organization: Groupes francophones par TrigoFACILE
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 15:33 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.trigofacile.com!.POSTED.2a01cb0800a77500fd824b5ade2841be.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr!not-for-mail
From: iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid (Julien_ÉLIE)
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies
Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:33:36 +0100
Organization: Groupes francophones par TrigoFACILE
Message-ID: <rt9u0g$uff$1@news.trigofacile.com>
References: <rqiktk$hpg$1@news.trigofacile.com>
<nah.2012121331.250@meneldor.ancalagon.de>
<rt2fll$u4i$1@news.trigofacile.com> <nah.2101081610.25@meneldor.ancalagon.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 15:33:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.trigofacile.com; posting-account="julien"; posting-host="2a01cb0800a77500fd824b5ade2841be.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr:2a01:cb08:a7:7500:fd82:4b5a:de28:41be";
logging-data="31215"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@trigofacile.com"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
In-Reply-To: <nah.2101081610.25@meneldor.ancalagon.de>
Content-Language: fr
View all headers
Hi Thomas,

Many thanks for your work on INN (and a new key for fr.*)!

Thanks!
I think the next feature I'll work on is the long-awaited Cancel-Lock integration in nnrpd and innd.


Of 377 newsgroups in de.*, just about 25-30 get more than 200
posts per month (~ 7-10/day). Some hundred (nearly) empty groups
should have been removed for years, I think, but why bother?

Do you know whether that nearly hundred empty groups still have readers?

No easy way to check that. :)

Sure. :-)
We plan on testing that on fr.*, trying to post on several groups without any messages, to see whether we receive answers.



   There's a difference between an empty newsgroup in which a new post
will be answered, and an empty newsgroup in which a new post will stay
unanswered...

Yes, I concur. But IMHO an empty group that _stays_ empty for months
and years does not serve a purpose any longer, too.

Good point!

--
Julien ÉLIE

« J'aime les calculs faux car ils donnent des résultats plus justes. »
   (Jean Arp)


Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
From: Neodome Admin
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies
Organization: Neodome
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 00:23 UTC
References: 1 2 3
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.neodome.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: adm...@neodome.net (Neodome Admin)
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies
Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 00:23:35 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Neodome
Message-ID: <rud5u7$1sis$1@neodome.net>
References: <rqiktk$hpg$1@news.trigofacile.com>
<nah.2012121331.250@meneldor.ancalagon.de>
<rt2fll$u4i$1@news.trigofacile.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 00:23:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: neodome.net; mail-complaints-to="abuse@neodome.net"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LeiOsrRSXntJuZlVvC85/JjpAac=
View all headers
Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:

- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of a
newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?

No. "Removed" groups tend to stay around.

Unfortunately.  At least if they were in an "archive" state, without any
new post, that would be better.

Why is that? I’m genuinely curious.

--
Neodome


Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
From: Julien_ÉLIE
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies
Organization: Groupes francophones par TrigoFACILE
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:30 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.trigofacile.com!.POSTED.2a01cb0800a77500fc29e7e62afbdd49.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr!not-for-mail
From: iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid (Julien_ÉLIE)
Newsgroups: news.admin.hierarchies
Subject: Re: Modern administration of creation and removal proposals
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 14:30:30 +0100
Organization: Groupes francophones par TrigoFACILE
Message-ID: <ruek1r$d1s$1@news.trigofacile.com>
References: <rqiktk$hpg$1@news.trigofacile.com>
<nah.2012121331.250@meneldor.ancalagon.de>
<rt2fll$u4i$1@news.trigofacile.com> <rud5u7$1sis$1@neodome.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:30:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.trigofacile.com; posting-account="julien"; posting-host="2a01cb0800a77500fc29e7e62afbdd49.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr:2a01:cb08:a7:7500:fc29:e7e6:2afb:dd49";
logging-data="13372"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@trigofacile.com"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
In-Reply-To: <rud5u7$1sis$1@neodome.net>
Content-Language: fr
View all headers
Hi Neodome,

- Do you have a process like the evaluation of the creation of a
newsgroup after 6 or 12 months, with its removal if it is unused?

No. "Removed" groups tend to stay around.

Unfortunately.  At least if they were in an "archive" state, without any
new post, that would be better.

Why is that? I’m genuinely curious.

It was a suggestion because of the way removals are done in "managed" hierarchies:
- either a news server honours the rmgroup control article, and then the newsgroup disappears instantly, even though there were still open discussions;
- or a news server keeps the newsgroup alive, and then discussions can go on (including a few months or years after its removal, if there wasn't any traffic at the time it was closed).

When newsgroups are not removed, it ends up confusing for users to find active and well-propagated newsgroups.  The list is too long, and they can get frustrated when posting and seeing no response.


Note that it does not change much for news server that expire contents after a few months.  Old discussions will disappear anyway.
Instead of removing the newsgroup, it could be marked as closed (no new article allowed - flag "x" in active).  This is what I called an "archive" state.  But this is not a current practice.

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Rien n'est plus facile à apprendre que la géométrie pour peu qu'on en
   ait besoin. » (Sacha Guitry)


1
rocksolid light 0.7.2
clearneti2ptor