I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creating
a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votes
in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M
must also be above some value. But looking at
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Content_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
and
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Final_RFD_/_Last_Call_for_Comments

I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was
true for some groups hierarchy ?

Spiros Bousbouras schrieb:

> I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creating
> a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votes
> in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M
> must also be above some value.

Yes, that has been true for the Big 8 until 2005 with the creation of the
Big 8 Management Board.

> I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was
> true for some groups hierarchy ?

Your recollection is correct, but not current. :)

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 02:15:30 -0000 (UTC), Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

> I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creating
> a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votes
> in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M
> must also be above some value. But looking at
> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/
Content_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
> and https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Final_RFD_/_Last_Call_for_Comments
>
> I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was
> true for some groups hierarchy ?

There were lots of problems with the public voting system, namely trolls.
People would vote against a group for the sake of causing problems. Since
Usenet is relatively anonymous, there is no way to fairly and accurately
count individual votes. If someone voted 20 times under 20 different
email addresses (it's not that hard to do), nobody would know. See David
Lawrence and Henry Spencer's Managing Usenet (https://openlibrary.org/
books/OL8667193M/Managing_Usenet).

Today, things are fairly simple. If you want to propose a group, you can
do so here. The main thing that we ask is that you have people, who
actually want to use the group, vouch for its creation. The board takes a
vote and we have it created.

Last year we created comp.infosystems.gemini. It's a nice group with a
fair amount of activity and no spam because the spambots don't know about
it and Google Groups doesn't add newly created Usenet groups any longer.
If you're interested in creating a group, post here or email the board.

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 07:08:27 -0000 (UTC)
Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 02:15:30 -0000 (UTC), Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>
> > I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creating
> > a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votes
> > in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M
> > must also be above some value. But looking at
> > https://www.big-8.org/wiki/
> Content_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
> > and https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Final_RFD_/_Last_Call_for_Comments
> >
> > I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was
> > true for some groups hierarchy ?
>
> There were lots of problems with the public voting system, namely trolls.
> People would vote against a group for the sake of causing problems. Since
> Usenet is relatively anonymous, there is no way to fairly and accurately
> count individual votes. If someone voted 20 times under 20 different
> email addresses (it's not that hard to do), nobody would know.

So that's the reason. I have been thinking that with the current low number
of people on usenet (at least based on those who post) it would be almost
impossible to achieve the minimum number of "in favour" votes required with
the old system. My vague recollection is that the minimum number was a
3-digit number.

> Last year we created comp.infosystems.gemini. It's a nice group with a
> fair amount of activity and no spam because the spambots don't know about
> it

Yes , I noticed that in the last couple of days. I'm not interested in the
group myself but I'm glad that a new group was created. I hope usenet remains
strong and vibrant for a long time.

> and Google Groups doesn't add newly created Usenet groups any longer.

That's interesting , how do you know it ?

> If you're interested in creating a group, post here or email the board.

Out of curiosity , do inactive groups still get expunged ? Personally I see
no reason why they should. They cause no harm by being around and you never
know when a previously inactive group may become active again.

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

>> and Google Groups doesn't add newly created Usenet groups any longer.
>
> That's interesting , how do you know it ?

If you subscribe to control.newgroup and control.rmgroup, you'll see all of
the requests to create and remove groups. There have been a handful of new
groups in the free.* and alt.* hierarchies in the past couple of years. None
of them are available in groups.google.com, so that tells me that they
aren't picking up new groups.

>
>> If you're interested in creating a group, post here or email the board.
>
> Out of curiosity , do inactive groups still get expunged ? Personally I
> see no reason why they should. They cause no harm by being around and you
> never know when a previously inactive group may become active again.

One of the remits of the board is to remove unused groups. We are in the
process of removing comp.software.shareware.announce and
comp.software.shareware.authors. You can see discussion on
news.groups.proposals. These are being deleted because of zero usage and no
new moderator.

Jason

Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>One of the remits of the board is to remove unused groups. We are in the
>process of removing comp.software.shareware.announce and
>comp.software.shareware.authors. You can see discussion on
>news.groups.proposals. These are being deleted because of zero usage and no
>new moderator.

Actually, it's not one of the remits of the board. It's widely seen as
useless busy work.

And I've asked repeatedly that you stop holding configging discussion in
the moderated news.groups.proposals and move it back to unmoderated
news.groups.

On 2022-03-04, Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 02:15:30 -0000 (UTC), Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>
>> I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creating
>> a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votes
>> in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M
>> must also be above some value. But looking at
>> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/
> Content_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
>> and https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Final_RFD_/_Last_Call_for_Comments
>>
>> I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was
>> true for some groups hierarchy ?
>
> There were lots of problems with the public voting system, namely trolls.

I have no memory of "trolls" being a problem in the latter days of
public voting.

> People would vote against a group for the sake of causing problems.

Again, not in the latter days.

> Since Usenet is relatively anonymous, there is no way to fairly and
> accurately count individual votes. If someone voted 20 times under 20
> different email addresses (it's not that hard to do), nobody would
> know.

Again, it didn't happen.

Or to be precise: whenever it was attempted, it was detected.

> See David Lawrence and Henry Spencer's Managing Usenet
> (https://openlibrary.org/books/OL8667193M/Managing_Usenet).

Published 1998, and already out of date then.

The truth is that the last plausible proposal under the old system,
comp.databases.mysql, failed to attract enough YES votes, but was
nevertheless newgrouped by the hierarchy admins. The real reason why we
no longer have voting is that it didn't produce the results that were
desired by Russ Allbery, Todd McComb and the one whose name nobody can
remember.

> Today, things are fairly simple.

"Simple" is a good old English word, but "cretinous" is more precise.

<irresponsible rubbish snipped>

--
PJR :-)

On 2022-03-05, Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>
>>> and Google Groups doesn't add newly created Usenet groups any longer.
>>
>> That's interesting , how do you know it ?
>
> If you subscribe to control.newgroup and control.rmgroup, you'll see all of
> the requests to create and remove groups. There have been a handful of new
> groups in the free.* and alt.* hierarchies in the past couple of years. None
> of them are available in groups.google.com, so that tells me that they
> aren't picking up new groups.

Google never added alt.* or free.* groups automatically. Neither did
most reputable news admins.

But Google used to process Big-8 control messages. I wonder when they
stopped.

Have they stopped adding groups from other managed hierarchies, or is it
only you whom they regard with contempt?

Presumably they also ignore your rmgroups. Good for them!

--
PJR :-)

On 2022-03-03, Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creating
> a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votes
> in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M
> must also be above some value.

Yes.

> But looking at
> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Content_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
> and
> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Final_RFD_/_Last_Call_for_Comments
>
> I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was
> true for some groups hierarchy ?

The democratic element in the Big-8 was replaced circa 2005 by absolute
dictatorship.

If you want a new newsgroup, bow down and worship Jason Evans!

--
PJR :-)

Peter J Ross wrote:

> Have they stopped adding groups from other managed hierarchies

Two examples of relatively new newsgroups from other hierarchies include
fr.comp.sys.raspberry-pi and it.eventi.covid19. Both are active groups but
are not available on google groups. Both also seem to be free of spam.

Peter J Ross wrote:
> On 2022-03-04, Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 02:15:30 -0000 (UTC), Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>
>>> I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creating
>>> a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votes
>>> in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M
>>> must also be above some value. But looking at
>>> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/
>> Content_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
>>> and https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Final_RFD_/_Last_Call_for_Comments
>>>
>>> I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was
>>> true for some groups hierarchy ?
>>
>> There were lots of problems with the public voting system, namely trolls.
>
> I have no memory of "trolls" being a problem in the latter days of
> public voting.

The Usenet that existed when there was voting was completely different
from today's Usenet. There were a few issues with votes, but overall
the voting system accomplished what it was set out to do - gauge
interest in a proposed newsgroup.

One of the differences that today's Usenet population doesn't appreciate
is that in those days it was not easy to obtain multiple email addresses
that could be used to cast multiple votes. In order to cast n votes,
you needed to have n working email addresses. For most folks, n was 1.

The other basic difference was the population of Usenet. The idea of
creating a new newsgroup was to make it easier for a group of people to
discuss a given topic. There weren't hidden agendas; it was a
straightforward question of whether a new group would improve the
discussion or not. Voting was a straightforward way to answer that
question.

>> People would vote against a group for the sake of causing problems.
>
> Again, not in the latter days.
>
>> Since Usenet is relatively anonymous, there is no way to fairly and
>> accurately count individual votes. If someone voted 20 times under 20
>> different email addresses (it's not that hard to do), nobody would
>> know.
>
> Again, it didn't happen.

There was no motivation to do it, and it WAS that hard to come up with
20 working email addresses in those days.

> Or to be precise: whenever it was attempted, it was detected.

The problem was not multiple votes by one person, but encouraging people
to vote who had no intention of using the newsgroup. It was against the
rules to do things like post the voting information to a mailing list
and encourage members of the mailing list to vote; the idea was to gauge
the interest in the Usenet community from people who were actually
interested in using the group. Back then, believe it or not, most
people followed the rules. In a few cases, violations were observed and
votes were discarded.

On 09/03/2022 07:09, Jason Evans wrote:
>
> Both are active groups but are not available on google groups.
> Both also seem to be free of spam.

Hmmm... I wonder if the second statement is in any way related to the
first statement?! ;-)

Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
>Peter J Ross wrote:
>>On 2022-03-04, Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 02:15:30 -0000 (UTC), Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

>>>>I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creating
>>>>a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votes
>>>>in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M
>>>>must also be above some value. But looking at
>>>>https://www.big-8.org/wiki/
>>>Content_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
>>>>and https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Final_RFD_/_Last_Call_for_Comments

>>>>I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was
>>>>true for some groups hierarchy ?

>>>There were lots of problems with the public voting system, namely trolls.

>>I have no memory of "trolls" being a problem in the latter days of
>>public voting.

>The Usenet that existed when there was voting was completely different
>from today's Usenet. There were a few issues with votes, but overall
>the voting system accomplished what it was set out to do - gauge
>interest in a proposed newsgroup. . . .

Voting wasn't a gauge of interest at all.

Are you interested in a topic? Well, discuss the topic on Usenet.

>The other basic difference was the population of Usenet. The idea of
>creating a new newsgroup was to make it easier for a group of people to
>discuss a given topic. There weren't hidden agendas; it was a
>straightforward question of whether a new group would improve the
>discussion or not. Voting was a straightforward way to answer that
>question.

It really wasn't. Plenty of proposed groups were motivated by "Yes,
Topic A is on topic, but I don't want to see it. Let's force discussion
I don't like to move to a separate group 'cuz I don't wanna use my kill
file."

>>>People would vote against a group for the sake of causing problems.

>>Again, not in the latter days.

>>>Since Usenet is relatively anonymous, there is no way to fairly and
>>>accurately count individual votes. If someone voted 20 times under 20
>>>different email addresses (it's not that hard to do), nobody would
>>>know.

>>Again, it didn't happen.

>There was no motivation to do it, and it WAS that hard to come up with
>20 working email addresses in those days.

>>Or to be precise: whenever it was attempted, it was detected.

>The problem was not multiple votes by one person, but encouraging people
>to vote who had no intention of using the newsgroup. It was against the
>rules to do things like post the voting information to a mailing list
>and encourage members of the mailing list to vote; the idea was to gauge
>the interest in the Usenet community from people who were actually
>interested in using the group. Back then, believe it or not, most
>people followed the rules. In a few cases, violations were observed and
>votes were discarded.

So, you're denying that Stromboli scandal happened?

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:

> Voting wasn't a gauge of interest at all.
>
> Are you interested in a topic? Well, discuss the topic on Usenet.

And I see that you have a better idea.

I'm sorry, but really? Voting was not an gauge of interest? Given the
need to make a decision on creation of new newsgroups, how would you
propose to make anything approaching an objective decision? Oh, wait.
I've got it. Let's form a small committee.

>> The other basic difference was the population of Usenet. The idea of
>> creating a new newsgroup was to make it easier for a group of people to
>> discuss a given topic. There weren't hidden agendas; it was a
>> straightforward question of whether a new group would improve the
>> discussion or not. Voting was a straightforward way to answer that
>> question.
>
> It really wasn't. Plenty of proposed groups were motivated by "Yes,
> Topic A is on topic, but I don't want to see it. Let's force discussion
> I don't like to move to a separate group 'cuz I don't wanna use my kill
> file."

Which is a perfectly reasonable motivation to create a new newsgroup, if
there is enough discussion of Topic A. Back to the basic idea of
voting; if there are enough people who think that Topic A should be in
its own newsgroup, the vote gauges that idea. I don't really care if
the reason is lazy folks; if there are enough of them to pass the vote,
it's no different from any other decision on whether a specific topic
"deserves" its own newsgroup.

>> The problem was not multiple votes by one person, but encouraging people
>> to vote who had no intention of using the newsgroup. It was against the
>> rules to do things like post the voting information to a mailing list
>> and encourage members of the mailing list to vote; the idea was to gauge
>> the interest in the Usenet community from people who were actually
>> interested in using the group. Back then, believe it or not, most
>> people followed the rules. In a few cases, violations were observed and
>> votes were discarded.
>
> So, you're denying that Stromboli scandal happened?

No, what I am saying is the voting system was appropriate for its time.
Using the term "scandal" in relation to Usenet is hilarious. The world
will not end, then or now, based on the creation of a newsgroup. One
comes up with the best system one can, given the importance of the
question and the resources to investigate it. Voting worked well for
years. Monday morning quarterbacking is fun, but not very useful.

Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:

>>Voting wasn't a gauge of interest at all.

>>Are you interested in a topic? Well, discuss the topic on Usenet.

>And I see that you have a better idea.

>I'm sorry, but really? Voting was not an gauge of interest?

No. I never agreed with it. But it was around long before I read Big 8
newsgroups. I came in at the tail end of tale.

>Given the
>need to make a decision on creation of new newsgroups, how would you
>propose to make anything approaching an objective decision? Oh, wait.
>I've got it. Let's form a small committee.

barf icon

Haven't we had the conversation two dozen times already? On Usenet, what
someone says he'll do is meaningless. All that's important is what he
actually does. If he's discussing the topic already, then great, his
opinion on whether to proceed with the proposed newsgroup or keep the
discussion in the existing newsgroup is important. If he's never
discussed the topic on Usenet, his opinion is worthless.

If there's concensus among those discussing the topic to move to a new
group and there's enough discussion for s sustainable group, then
there's some benefit to the new group. Maybe. But too many groups have
been proposed over the years attempting to force other people to change
their posting habits. That doesn't work.

Voting was always useless.

>>>The other basic difference was the population of Usenet. The idea of
>>>creating a new newsgroup was to make it easier for a group of people to
>>>discuss a given topic. There weren't hidden agendas; it was a
>>>straightforward question of whether a new group would improve the
>>>discussion or not. Voting was a straightforward way to answer that
>>>question.

>>It really wasn't. Plenty of proposed groups were motivated by "Yes,
>>Topic A is on topic, but I don't want to see it. Let's force discussion
>>I don't like to move to a separate group 'cuz I don't wanna use my kill
>>file."

>Which is a perfectly reasonable motivation to create a new newsgroup, if
>there is enough discussion of Topic A. . . .

It's hostile crap and an extreme form of topic moderation that should
never be appeased.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 17:41:51 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
> >The problem was not multiple votes by one person, but encouraging people
> >to vote who had no intention of using the newsgroup. It was against the
> >rules to do things like post the voting information to a mailing list
> >and encourage members of the mailing list to vote; the idea was to gauge
> >the interest in the Usenet community from people who were actually
> >interested in using the group. Back then, believe it or not, most
> >people followed the rules. In a few cases, violations were observed and
> >votes were discarded.
>
> So, you're denying that Stromboli scandal happened?

What's the Stromboli scandal in relation to usenet ? Googling did not
enlighten me.

Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 17:41:51 -0000 (UTC)
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:

>>>The problem was not multiple votes by one person, but encouraging people
>>>to vote who had no intention of using the newsgroup. It was against the
>>>rules to do things like post the voting information to a mailing list
>>>and encourage members of the mailing list to vote; the idea was to gauge
>>>the interest in the Usenet community from people who were actually
>>>interested in using the group. Back then, believe it or not, most
>>>people followed the rules. In a few cases, violations were observed and
>>>votes were discarded.

>>So, you're denying that Stromboli scandal happened?

>What's the Stromboli scandal in relation to usenet ? Googling did not
>enlighten me.

Not Usenet generally. Voting to recommend the proposed newgroup to tale and
other Big 8 hierarchy administratos, which is what we have been discussing.

There were a series of attacks and fraudulent votes in the final years
of voting. The attacks were directed at the votetakers and just one
remained at the end.

Typically, votes would fail due to the extremely high supermajority
required and threshold of votes required.

One vote appeared to pass but so many users named "Stromboli" voted in
favor of it that fraud was declared. It was thought that these were
email addresses of multiple people and that the proponent's supporter
had gotten all his relatives to vote for it from a very large family.

We were never sure if it was a supporter who did it or just someone
gaming the system to wreak havoc.

Encouraging people to vote in favor of a proposed newsgroup who had no
interest in discussing the topic -- and many of these people were
probably not Usenet users -- was vote fraud.

With that, the final volunteer votetaker quit and Russ and Todd who had
taken over from tale lowered the voting supermajority and threshold and
counted votes themselves.

The final nail in the coffin for voting was the POSRESQL group or the
other database language group that still failed the vote with the easier
thresholds and supermajority. They didn't like the result and declared
the vote "passed". I objected and told the two of them then that as
hierarchy administrators they could use their own judgment but they were
not to rewrite history to hide an outcome they didn't like.

Todd changed it to "failed" and they started the group. I don't recall
if it had much traffic.

I'm top posting because nothing you said is worth commenting on.

I said, "And I see that you have a better idea." You posted many words,
but no better idea - just how much you hate everything.

Voting was/is not perfect. The only alternative is some human or small
group of humans making the decision. That's where we are now, and you
hate that even more.

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>> Voting wasn't a gauge of interest at all.
>
>>> Are you interested in a topic? Well, discuss the topic on Usenet.
>
>> And I see that you have a better idea.
>
>> I'm sorry, but really? Voting was not an gauge of interest?
>
> No. I never agreed with it. But it was around long before I read Big 8
> newsgroups. I came in at the tail end of tale.
>
>> Given the
>> need to make a decision on creation of new newsgroups, how would you
>> propose to make anything approaching an objective decision? Oh, wait.
>> I've got it. Let's form a small committee.
>
> barf icon
>
> Haven't we had the conversation two dozen times already? On Usenet, what
> someone says he'll do is meaningless. All that's important is what he
> actually does. If he's discussing the topic already, then great, his
> opinion on whether to proceed with the proposed newsgroup or keep the
> discussion in the existing newsgroup is important. If he's never
> discussed the topic on Usenet, his opinion is worthless.
>
> If there's concensus among those discussing the topic to move to a new
> group and there's enough discussion for s sustainable group, then
> there's some benefit to the new group. Maybe. But too many groups have
> been proposed over the years attempting to force other people to change
> their posting habits. That doesn't work.
>
> Voting was always useless.
>
>>>> The other basic difference was the population of Usenet. The idea of
>>>> creating a new newsgroup was to make it easier for a group of people to
>>>> discuss a given topic. There weren't hidden agendas; it was a
>>>> straightforward question of whether a new group would improve the
>>>> discussion or not. Voting was a straightforward way to answer that
>>>> question.
>
>>> It really wasn't. Plenty of proposed groups were motivated by "Yes,
>>> Topic A is on topic, but I don't want to see it. Let's force discussion
>>> I don't like to move to a separate group 'cuz I don't wanna use my kill
>>> file."
>
>> Which is a perfectly reasonable motivation to create a new newsgroup, if
>> there is enough discussion of Topic A. . . .
>
> It's hostile crap and an extreme form of topic moderation that should
> never be appeased.
>

Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:

>I'm top posting because nothing you said is worth commenting on.

Oh, goody. Then I am similarly posting this followup not to comment on
your blather.

But at least I'm not a top-posting fuckhead.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 06:15:55 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 17:41:51 -0000 (UTC)
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >>>The problem was not multiple votes by one person, but encouraging people
> >>>to vote who had no intention of using the newsgroup. It was against the
> >>>rules to do things like post the voting information to a mailing list
> >>>and encourage members of the mailing list to vote; the idea was to gauge
> >>>the interest in the Usenet community from people who were actually
> >>>interested in using the group. Back then, believe it or not, most
> >>>people followed the rules. In a few cases, violations were observed and
> >>>votes were discarded.
>
> >>So, you're denying that Stromboli scandal happened?
>
> >What's the Stromboli scandal in relation to usenet ? Googling did not
> >enlighten me.
>
> Not Usenet generally. Voting to recommend the proposed newgroup to tale and
> other Big 8 hierarchy administratos, which is what we have been discussing.

"tale" ? Is this some usenet nickname ?

> There were a series of attacks and fraudulent votes in the final years
> of voting. The attacks were directed at the votetakers and just one
> remained at the end.
>
> Typically, votes would fail due to the extremely high supermajority
> required and threshold of votes required.
>
> One vote appeared to pass but so many users named "Stromboli" voted in
> favor of it that fraud was declared. It was thought that these were
> email addresses of multiple people and that the proponent's supporter
> had gotten all his relatives to vote for it from a very large family.

That's an amusing story. Do you happen to remember what the group was
about ?

> We were never sure if it was a supporter who did it or just someone
> gaming the system to wreak havoc.

Attempts to game the system should certainly be opposed but at the same
time I think "wreak havoc" for creating a new group is an exaggeration.
It wouldn't cause havoc in the slightest to create a new group even if
it ended up having no discussion.

> Encouraging people to vote in favor of a proposed newsgroup who had no
> interest in discussing the topic -- and many of these people were
> probably not Usenet users -- was vote fraud.

Greetings.

On 05/03/2022 16.42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> And I've asked repeatedly that you stop holding configging discussion in
> the moderated news.groups.proposals and move it back to unmoderated
> news.groups.

You have indeed, as has Steve Bonine. Now that the present Board has
run a few RFDs and observed how the existing process works nowadays,
we'll be revisiting the issue of where to hold public discussions.
Leastaways, it's something I'll be raising with the other Board members
once the current comp.software.shareware.* RFD is complete. At this
point my own inclination is to move public discussions back here, though
as a first step I'd probably want the Board to formally propose this
idea here in order to gather further feedback.

Regards,
Tristan

--
Usenet Big-8 Management Board
https://www.big-8.org/
board@big-8.org

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote, in part:
>> Voting to recommend the proposed newgroup to tale and other Big 8
>> hierarchy administratos, which is what we have been discussing.

to which Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> asked:
> "tale" ? Is this some usenet nickname ?

Just as you're spibou, he was tale.
-WBE