On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:59:02 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:49:25 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:46:00 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:18:01 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:46:40 -0500, "Ralph" anon@anon wrote:


You don't get to make comments, you idiot! Don't you get it? The proposed
group is about Amateur Radio...and they intend to keep you and your ilk out
of it. This ain't a Democracy, Mark.


Just what do you think the acronym "RFD" means? Just curious...

to be Honest I don't what it means in this case myself

which is amoug my objections to how this whole thing has been handled
we are all expectted to KNOW a bunch of rules and "regs for a process
at least I have never seen before
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

The rules concerning newsgroup creation are available on the web. Just
do a google search on newsgroup creation or I can post it if
necessary. The acronym "RFD" stands for "Request for Discussion." The
process is not unique to only the rec newsgroups...there are seven
others in the Big 8.

I have had tried to read though a lot of it but it gets rather
confusing indeed the Intel person peron I am professional at imes gets
suspious that it is intended to be confusing

but even after a few back and frth with a moderator on the proposal
gruop I still don't what is off topic for that gruop in expressing
resverations about a proposed memebr of the moderating gruop/

http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

I guess it needs to be posted since so many seem to be unaware of the
process evidenced by comments about discussion not being allowed. You
are indeed allowed to post questions regarding the proposal and the
proponents are required to answer your question. Just post your
concerns as questions and not comments. They should go through.

It is interesting to note that discussions here should have follow ups
set to go to the ng proposals ng. However, there seems to be an
effort to keep that from happening. I guess that some people don't
want those on the decision board to know about some discussions.

Please note that those on the creation board do not have a vested
interest in the formation and probably do not post to these ng's. The
process is designed to be as fair as possible and the ng created if
their will be sufficient traffic to justify it and a need has been
established.

I have no intention of using the ng's when created because I have
serious reservations about the ability of the moderators to be
impartial. Nuff said about that.

Here. I hope that this helps you understand the process a little
better. If I were you, I'd just go with the flow. Ask any questions
that you have about the charter, FAQ, and moderation over there. The
proponents are required to reply to questions in a polite and
informative manner and the BS experienced here will not be tolerated
from either position. Sometimes, moderation is a necessary evil.

Here...hope this helps you understand the process at least.

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...icies:creation




1. Informal Discussion
Anyone wishing to propose a newsgroup may do so simply by posting a
message to that effect in news.groups or by writing the Big-8
Management Board or one of its committees. There are no requirements
on the format or content of that message. For example, “Yo, dude, a
surfing newsgroup would be WAY COOL!” would be a perfectly fine way to
initiate a discussion. Of course, more information is always welcome,
but it is not required at this point in the process.

The idea is to get ideas out in the open quickly, where they can be
discussed and fleshed out before the formal RFD is written.

The proponent of the newsgroup ought to cross-post the idea to other,
relevant newsgroups in addition to news.groups. In these cross posts,
follow ups should be directed to news.groups so that discussion of the
idea is confined to a single location. This makes it easier for
interested parties to follow the entire discussion in one place, and
for uninterested parties to avoid the discussion simply by staying out
of news.groups. However, this is merely a recommendation – the
proponent should do what s/he feels comfortable with during the
informal discussion of the proposal.

The proponent may choose to conduct an interest poll during the
informal discussion phase. See the notes on Traffic Analysis for
further information.

Proponents who have experience with the newsgroup creation process and
believe that they have a well-developed idea may skip the informal
discussion and start with step 2, the RFD.

2. Request for Discussion (RFD)
The proponent submits his/her proposal to the newsgroup
news.announce.newgroups by posting to the group or by emailing the
proposal to . This
submission is known as a Request For Discussion, or RFD.

The RFD should be cross-posted to newsgroups whose readers might be
interested in or affected by the proposed group. It should also be
cross-posted to news.groups.proposals, and followups should be
directed there. (If you do not know how to set followups in your
newsreader, we will help you figure it out. The line that needs to be
included in the RFD header field is “Followup-to:
news.groups.proposals”.)

Some information is required in the RFD:

newsgroup name
Checkgroups file entry
whether the newsgroup will be moderated or unmoderated
if moderated, who the initial moderator(s) will be, including their
contact addresses
Some information is not required, but is strongly encouraged:

rationale
charter
moderation policy, if moderated
Other information which supports the creation of the newsgroup may be
included. For example, this could include:

traffic analysis
moderation site and software
Each of these items is discussed in greater detail here.

As discussion of the RFD progresses in news.groups, the proponent
should submit revised RFDs to news.announce.newgroups et al.



3. Discussions of the Proposal in news.groups.proposals
News.groups.proposals is a moderated newsgroup in which Big-8
newsgroup proposals are discussed. We ask proponents and others
interested in a proposal to subscribe to news.groups.proposals for the
duration of the discussion period and, so far as possible, to bring
the discussion of this group elsewhere into n.g.p. by using the
“Followup-to: news.groups.proposals” header along with a line in the
body of the post saying “Followups set.”

All discussion of active proposals should be posted to
news.groups.proposals. If desired by the readership of closely
affected groups, the discussion may be crossposted to those groups,
but care must be taken to ensure that all discussion appears in n.g.p.
The purpose of the discussion is to evaluate all of the elements in
the RFD: name, charter, rationale, traffic analysis, moderation
policy, moderators, distribution list, etc., along with other concerns
about how the topic fits into the Big-8 and Usenet as a whole.

It is very important that proponents answer questions about their RFD
in news.groups.proposals. Failure to participate in the discussion
will result in the proposal being removed from the active queue. At
the same time, proponents who are responding to reasonable questions
and requests for clarification may use their discretion in not
responding to repetitious or contentious questioning.

As a general rule, members of the Board are expected to follow the
discussion in news.groups.proposals. Members of the Board who wish to
do so may participate in the discussion either to express their
personal views or to clarify matters of policy and procedure.

The Board may, at its discretion, conduct polls of various kinds to
help settle the question of whether the group should be created.
Proponents may also initiate polls to show that creating the group is
desirable.

4. The Proponent Asks the Board Make a Decision
When the proponent is ready for the board to make its decision, he or
she should submit an RFD/Last Call For Comments to
news.announce.newgroups. The Board may also take the initiative to
suggest to a proponent that the time has come to end the discussion
and make a decision on the proposal.

If the board believes that the proposal is ready for a decision to be
made, the Board will publish the RFD/LCC under its own name. The RFD
will announce that the Board will begin voting after 5 days, and that
interested persons should make any final comments that they wish the
Board to consider when making its decision.

Alternatively, the board may request that the proponent make
additional changes to the RFD/LCC, or supply additional information;
or they may request that the proponent continue to discuss the
proposal in news.groups.proposals.

5. The Board Votes on the Proposal
The Board will decide whether the new group will be created. In making
its decision, the Board will use its standard voting procedures.

The Board will wait five days after the Final RFD and Last Call for
Comments is issued before beginning to vote. After the five-day
period, the Board’s vote may take one to seven days.

If the Board decides not to create the new group, the Board’s
announcement of the decision will include an explanation of why the
proposal was rejected. Furthermore, the Board will explain to the
proponent, either privately or in the decision announcement, what, if
anything, he or she can do to improve the proposal before asking the
Board to reconsider it.

6. If the Proposal Passes, It is Implemented
The Technical Team will take responsibility for properly formatting
and circulating the request to create the new group. This formal
request will be archived at the ISC website.