Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote:
Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor.

Marc, KD5LUR
[this followup directed only to rram and rrap]

The followups in the original RFD were directed to news.groups.proposals
and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is moderated.
Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because this
thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol.

So Loyd is a moderator...

The discussion has just begun, and already you people are incapable of
following directions.

....and already the "you people" remarks start.

Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals
that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to
rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8
Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the
suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news
groups, and that should help immeasurably.

Help with what?

But Mark has an axe to grind and actually fears the creation of a
moderated group. That's one of the reasons that I will file a proper
comment to news.groups.proposals in favor of the creation of the new
group. I would like to see abusers like Mark lose their ability to
destroy any rec.radio.amateur news group at will. Should
rec.radio.amateur.moderated be approved, that will be a group which
cannot be vandalized by his kind.

Will forging attributes be tolerated? Will thread jacking be
tolerated?

There will be no impact on anyone using rrap or rram, because both of
those groups will continue "as is." According to the RFD, the new group
will be an additional group in which noise suppression by means of a
robot will at first be attempted. I see no reason for anyone to oppose
the creation of such a group, and I can see that there is at least the
possibility that it will turn out to be an asset to the amateur radio
community.

So I say, yes! Go ahead and give it a try. Only kooks can possibly
feel threatened by its creation. I will shortly post an affirmative
comment in news.groups.proposals.

Also note that, by posting your comments only to news.groups.proposals,
you will assured that people like Mark can't try out what they call
"thread hijacking." The vandals are powerless there.

Robesin will be powerless? If so, that's reason enough. He's 90% of
this groups problem.

Bob Brock wrote:
Establishing a moderated newsgroup on policy defeats it's own
purpose of providing open discussion.

Do you really think that vulgarity, profanity, and
sexuality along with ad hominem attacks have a
place in an amateur radio newsgroup?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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...

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:03:44 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:
Establishing a moderated newsgroup on policy defeats it's own
purpose of providing open discussion.

Do you really think that vulgarity, profanity, and
sexuality along with ad hominem attacks have a
place in an amateur radio newsgroup?

I think that freedom of speech is inherent to any open discussion. If
you don't like what they have to say, you are under no compulsion to
listen to them. I came and looked a few years ago and didn't like
what I saw, so I moved on. I'd have to see how much bias the
moderators have and I have to be honest with you, if they are regular
posters to these ng's, serious doubts about their ability to be
objective and judge each post on it's own merits or lack thereof.

I see the moderated ng's becoming the playground of one group or the
other and gaining the respectability of being part of the Big 8
hierarchy. That is unless those who make the decisions realize what
is going on. I notice no one has answered the question about why you
guys don't just start a yahoo group or something along those lines.
You don't really need permission for that you know and it's a lot
easier. You can still have your own private playground and decide who
gets to play in it.

I gave up on these two ng's long ago. However, I have hopes that now
that the code debate has been decided, things will improve. Flame
wars, name calling, and personal attacks are part of un moderated
Usenet. Learn to deal with it, leave it along, or move to a moderated
format. I have a really good set of filters to keep out most of the
riffraff.

Those are about your only choices.

KH6HZ wrote:
wrote:

That pretty much sums it up. I have observed the online behavior of
several of the folks on the moderation team, and to a person they
would all make good moderators IMHO.

I've probably exchanged "words" with several members of the moderation team
over the years.

I certainly have no problems with any of them.

Same here.

I believe the only ones who will are those who have issues with
self-restraint, which is exactly why this newsgroup has become a cesspool.
Best to stay above the fray and ignore the anklebiters.

One point that some seem to miss is that the new NG will not replace
RRAP. Both will exist, and people can post to both. The big difference
is that off-topic comments and personal attacks will be removed from
the moderated group.

I don't see what the big problem is.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 11 Jan 2007 18:40:17 -0800, wrote:

Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:09:35 CST, marc wrote:
Consider this (relatively) new ham all in favor.

Marc, KD5LUR
[this followup directed only to rram and rrap]

The followups in the original RFD were directed to news.groups.proposals
and ONLY to news.groups.proposals for a reason: That group is moderated.
Hence, I trimmed that moderated newsgroup from this thread, because this
thread is not presently following the no crossposts protocol.

So Loyd is a moderator...

Nope.

...and already the "you people" remarks start.

Dimwits always annoy me.

Indeed, Mark Morgan is correct that a search of Google Groups reveals
that Paul W. Schleck has NOT been a user of the groups he proposes to
rescue. As a non-user, his credibility will be hurt with the Big 8
Board if they continue with their past behavior. However, the
suggested moderators are not strangers to the rec.radio.amateur news
groups, and that should help immeasurably.

Help with what?

The credibility of the RFD's proponents, dimwit.

Will forging attributes be tolerated? Will thread jacking be
tolerated?

You should try reading the RFD, dimwit.


Robesin will be powerless? If so, that's reason enough. He's 90% of
this groups problem.


Haven't seen a Robeson post in weeks. Can't say the same thing about
Mark or you.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

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.

Bob Brock wrote:
The acronym "RFD" stands for "Request for Discussion."

I always thought it was, "Rural Free Delivery". :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore ) writes:
Bob Brock wrote:
The acronym "RFD" stands for "Request for Discussion."

I always thought it was, "Rural Free Delivery". :-)

Well those "internet types" have co-opted the acronym.

Actually, I always wondered what "RFD" meant in reference to mail
delivery, and I don't think I saw an explanation until I saw someone
mention the meaning on the internet.

Michael VE2BVW

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.