Re: 1st RfD: Mass-deletion of moderated groups without a moderator

Tristan Miller <tmiller@big-8.org> wrote:

2025-01-04 09:30, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:

              REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
101 moderated newsgroups.

The audience for potential moderators of these specific newsgroups is
not to be found here in news.groups.

DISTRIBUTION:

news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
news.groups

[...]

Brilliant stuff there, Way to literally go behind everybody's back.

Where do you suggest we post the RFD, then?

In newsgroups in which the topic is being discussed or in which related
topics are being discussed.

The vast majority of Usenet users do not read configging groups, so this
isn't notice.

Yes, if you insist upon this massive tale-like purge of checkgroups,
it's an incredible amount of work, so break it up into reasonable-sized
chunks.

You're skipping the part of the process that requires effort because you
are psyched to wield the axe.

Should we cross-post the RFD to all of the affected groups?

Crossposting is bad behavior. Start a thread in a newsgroup in which
similar topics are discussed and participate in the discussion.

You're the proponent here, not the hierarchy administrator. It behooves
you to take the steps that a decent proponent is supposed to take.

I know you are impatient. I know you've convinced yourself that this
will somehow save Usenet. It won't.

Do it the right way.

Should we post a separate copy of the RFD to each of the affected
groups?  Again, I'm worried this might trigger some automated
spam/flooding filters.  But again, maybe I am wrong about this.

Oh for gawd's sake. Why has the Big 8 hierarchy administration always
been so in love with boilerplate? It's meaningless.

Just write an article that someone might be interested in reading.

Besides the affected groups, is there a better place to reach an
audience of potential moderators?

If someone both discusses the topic and believes there is some problem
that moderation might solve, he'll volunteer. You find people intrested
in the topic in newsgroups in which the topic is discussed. That leaves
out configging newsgroups.

I look forward to your next trick, mass rmgrouping of unmoderated Big 8
newsgroups.

This has been done several times in the past, as documented on our
website at <https://www.big-8.org/wiki/The_Great_Downsizing_2011/1> and
<https://www.big-8.org/wiki/The_Great_Downsizing_2011/2>.

Yes. I am familiar with Usenet history from the period before my
participation.

If you have any objections, please make them heard in moderated group
news.groups.proposals. The "Followup-To:" header is set on this message,
so simply replying to this post should do the right thing.

You MUST NOT instruct me where to post my followup, It's my decision,
not yours.

No one is instructing you to do anything.  Our message *requests* you to
reply on news.groups.proposals as this is the only place the Board is
guaranteed to be monitoring the discussion.

Followup-To is an instruction from the author of the precursor article.
As the author of the followup article, it's my decision where to post
and whether to crosspost. However, Followup-To is a mean-spirited trick
as authors of followups don't always realize that they've been
redirected. I've made this error plenty of times.

In 2022 we initiated an RFD on whether to continue using
news.groups.proposals in this way, or to switch to the unmoderated
news.groups.  It doesn't appear as though we received any comments from
you.  The community's reaction to the RFD was mixed and so the Board
voted to preserve the status quo.  That said, you (or anyone else) is
welcome to start another RFD of your own.

My opinion of moderated configging discussion was well-known to the
hierarchy administrators. Life may have gotten in the way of paying
attention to that particular RFD, but since you already knew my opinion,
it hardly mattered that I didn't repeat my opinion during RFD.

Other people are choosing to participate in the moderated group. That's
their choice, not mine. My choice is to avoid moderated configging
discussion.

Same as it's not your place to redirect discussion with Followup-To,
it's not my place to prevent anyone from posting to a moderated
newsgroup.

You are still failing to appreciate the irony of attempting to limit
this discussion to a moderated newsgroup whilst arguing for the
widespread failure of moderated Usenet as a concept.