Withdrawal RFD rec.aviation.questions removal.

The RFD for rec.aviation.questions is being withdrawn at this time.

I anticipate proposing an RFD concerning the 4 moderated groups in the
rec.aviation.* hierarchy in the first quarter of 2007. The four
groups a

rec.aviation.answers, inactive since February 2002
rec.aviation.announce, inactive since June 1999
rec.aviation.stories, inactive since August 1998
rec.aviation.questions, inactive since June 1994

Possible actions include removal, assignment of a new moderator, or
other restructuring.

If you have an interest in any of these groups you may contact the Big
8 Management Board at . There is no reason
that these groups need to be treated as a package.
--
Jim Riley

[rec.aviation.piloting added to cross-post. It was mispelled, so that
the message I am responding to did not show up in that group]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:49:18 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

I would like to see rec.aviation.stories changed to unmoderated.

I think it would be likely that people would include the group in
cross-posts to other groups, or that followup discussion would also be
posted into the newsgroup, obscuring the longer articles the group was
intended to feature.

When the group was originally proposed, the rationale for moderation
was:

A number of netters brought up this group as a very strong desire
at Oshkosh. People felt that one of the greatest strengths of the
net was the "I was there" stories -- stories which are very
different from the semi-sanitized accounts one sees in commercial
magazines. The desire was to have a forum for these longer
stories, one in which (a) it could be ensured that they'd be
easily found, (b) they wouldn't be intermixed with other stuff,
and (c) they wouldn't get drowned out by follow-ups. A moderated
newsgroup makes sense in this case, and also will allow a final
formatting check to be done to ensure that the articles are easy
to read (line lengths, etc.).

The group was expected to be relatively low volume (perhaps one or 2
articles per week) so that it could easily be hand moderated.
--
Jim Riley

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:32:29 GMT, Jim Riley
wrote in . net:

[rec.aviation.piloting added to cross-post. It was mispelled, so that
the message I am responding to did not show up in that group]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:49:18 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

I would like to see rec.aviation.stories changed to unmoderated.

I think it would be likely that people would include the group in
cross-posts to other groups, or that followup discussion would also be
posted into the newsgroup, obscuring the longer articles the group was
intended to feature.

When the group was originally proposed, the rationale for moderation
was:

A number of netters brought up this group as a very strong desire
at Oshkosh. People felt that one of the greatest strengths of the
net was the "I was there" stories -- stories which are very
different from the semi-sanitized accounts one sees in commercial
magazines. The desire was to have a forum for these longer
stories, one in which (a) it could be ensured that they'd be
easily found, (b) they wouldn't be intermixed with other stuff,
and (c) they wouldn't get drowned out by follow-ups. A moderated
newsgroup makes sense in this case, and also will allow a final
formatting check to be done to ensure that the articles are easy
to read (line lengths, etc.).

The group was expected to be relatively low volume (perhaps one or 2
articles per week) so that it could easily be hand moderated.

Well, my comment was out of frustration. I have submitted stories
over the years, but they are never approved by a moderator. I presume
that is because no one has been performing the moderation function. In
fact, if you look at the articles posted to rec.aviation.stories
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Arec.aviation.stories&start=0&scor ing=d&num=100&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as _miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=11&as_maxy=2006&safe =off&
date sorted, you find that the last time the late Mr. Peck's machine
posted the charter there was nearly five years ago, and the last (on
topic) story to be posted there occurred Apr. 25 1998, almost nine
years ago. It seems the group was quite active up until about 1996.

So, given the rationale for moderation cited above, and the desire to
see stories actually published in the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup,
what is the appropriate procedure for establishing a new moderator so
that the newsgroup can become functional again? And in the future, if
a moderator should disappear, what is the proper procedure for
installing a replacement to assume that role?

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:32:29 GMT, Jim Riley
wrote in . net:

[rec.aviation.piloting added to cross-post. It was mispelled, so that
the message I am responding to did not show up in that group]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:49:18 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

I would like to see rec.aviation.stories changed to unmoderated.

When the group was originally proposed, the rationale for moderation
was:

A number of netters brought up this group as a very strong desire
at Oshkosh. People felt that one of the greatest strengths of the
net was the "I was there" stories -- stories which are very
different from the semi-sanitized accounts one sees in commercial
magazines. The desire was to have a forum for these longer
stories, one in which (a) it could be ensured that they'd be
easily found, (b) they wouldn't be intermixed with other stuff,
and (c) they wouldn't get drowned out by follow-ups. A moderated
newsgroup makes sense in this case, and also will allow a final
formatting check to be done to ensure that the articles are easy
to read (line lengths, etc.).

The group was expected to be relatively low volume (perhaps one or 2
articles per week) so that it could easily be hand moderated.

Well, my comment was out of frustration. I have submitted stories
over the years, but they are never approved by a moderator. I presume
that is because no one has been performing the moderation function. [...]

So, given the rationale for moderation cited above, and the desire to
see stories actually published in the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup,
what is the appropriate procedure for establishing a new moderator so
that the newsgroup can become functional again? And in the future, if
a moderator should disappear, what is the proper procedure for
installing a replacement to assume that role?

Post a message in news.groups reporting the problem and requesting that
it be fixed. Possible fixes include removing the group (if there are
likely no longer people who wish to post to it), appointing a new
moderator (if a volunteer or volunteers with the necessary skills), or
changing the group status to unmoderated.

If there is a replacement readily available who is acceptable both to
the potential users of the group and the Big 8 Management Board (B8MB),
the replacement can be installed fairly quickly and easily.

--
Kathy - member of B8MB, speaking just for myself

In a previous article, Larry Dighera said:
So, given the rationale for moderation cited above, and the desire to
see stories actually published in the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup,
what is the appropriate procedure for establishing a new moderator so
that the newsgroup can become functional again? And in the future, if
a moderator should disappear, what is the proper procedure for
installing a replacement to assume that role?

Moderators aren't conjured up out of thin air. If you want the group to
remain moderated, then volunteer to be the moderator.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
I got told by a friend's ex-girlfriend that she could tell I was
a Linux geek from the way I *walked*.
-- Skud

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:08:24 -0900, (Kathy Morgan) wrote in :

So, given the rationale for moderation cited above, and the desire to
see stories actually published in the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup,
what is the appropriate procedure for establishing a new moderator so
that the newsgroup can become functional again? And in the future, if
a moderator should disappear, what is the proper procedure for
installing a replacement to assume that role?

Post a message in news.groups reporting the problem and requesting that
it be fixed. Possible fixes include removing the group (if there are
likely no longer people who wish to post to it), appointing a new
moderator (if a volunteer or volunteers with the necessary skills), or
changing the group status to unmoderated.

If there is a replacement readily available who is acceptable both to
the potential users of the group and the Big 8 Management Board (B8MB),
the replacement can be installed fairly quickly and easily.

Yes.

We have a page on Moderator Vacancy Investigations:

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:mvi

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB).
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:30:23 +0000 (UTC), (Paul Tomblin) wrote in :

In a previous article, Larry Dighera said:
So, given the rationale for moderation cited above, and the desire to
see stories actually published in the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup,
what is the appropriate procedure for establishing a new moderator so
that the newsgroup can become functional again? And in the future, if
a moderator should disappear, what is the proper procedure for
installing a replacement to assume that role?

Moderators aren't conjured up out of thin air. If you want the group to
remain moderated, then volunteer to be the moderator.

The man who helped get a lot of the rec.aviation.* groups
started unforunately was killed in a plane crash this
summer.

He seems to have become inactive as a moderator for
the moderated groups in 2002 or thereabouts.

rec.aviation.announce Events of interest to the aviation community. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.answers Frequently asked questions about aviation. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.questions Aviation questions and answers. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.stories Anecdotes of flight experiences. (Moderated)

Here is a draft page about how the current big-8 management
might go about trying to decide the fate of these groups:

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:mvi

The options a

1. Find new moderators for each of the four groups.

2. Remove unwanted groups if they're really unwanted.

3. Robomoderate the groups so that they essentially
become spam-filtered but are not otherwise watched
for content.

4. Make them into unmoderated groups (a process that
can be quite painful, perhaps).

Marty
--
The Big-8 hierarchies (comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk)
are under new management. See http://www.big-8.org for details.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:28:52 -0500, Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:

(...)
rec.aviation.announce Events of interest to the aviation community. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.answers Frequently asked questions about aviation. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.questions Aviation questions and answers. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.stories Anecdotes of flight experiences. (Moderated)
(...)
The options a

1. Find new moderators for each of the four groups.

2. Remove unwanted groups if they're really unwanted.
(...)

I'd opt for (2).
The above groups are not neccessary, IMHO.

BTW: show traffic (well, a bit unfair for a moderated group, even more
unfair without a moderator).

Marty

#m
--
Enemy Combatant http://itsnotallbad.com/

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:28:15 +0100, Martin Hotze
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:28:52 -0500, Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:

(...)
rec.aviation.announce Events of interest to the aviation community. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.answers Frequently asked questions about aviation. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.questions Aviation questions and answers. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.stories Anecdotes of flight experiences. (Moderated)
(...)
The options a

1. Find new moderators for each of the four groups.

2. Remove unwanted groups if they're really unwanted.
(...)

I'd opt for (2).
The above groups are not neccessary, IMHO.

I would use a test of utiltity or whether there is desire for a
particular newsgroup. think it may vary among the 4 groups.

If there are not actively maintained aviation FAQs, there is no point
to rec.aviation.answers. It's primary purpose would be to avoid
having the FAQ's posted across the rec.aviation.* hierarchy, where
many people would see them repetitively.

Widespread access to the world wide web may have supplanted the
utility of rec.aviation.announce. There may be a narrow niche for
"events of interest to the rec.aviation.* community"

I think rec.aviations.questions has an unworkable charter, and only
functioned for 3 months. I suppose you could have a group where
people posted questions, and people who wanted to could respond. But
doesn't that already happen in rec.aviation.*? It might take a lot of
effort to moderate.

I think rec.aviation.stories has the most potential. It was intended
to be low volume group, one that would require a little more effort on
the part of those posting, as well as those reading the articles.
Because it is low volume, it could be relatively easy to moderate. The
articles are unlikely to be particularly time sensitive such that
approvals need not be done in minutes or hours. Once a week may well
be sufficient.
--
Jim Riley

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:13:39 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:32:29 GMT, Jim Riley
wrote in . net:

[rec.aviation.piloting added to cross-post. It was mispelled, so that
the message I am responding to did not show up in that group]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:49:18 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

I would like to see rec.aviation.stories changed to unmoderated.

I think it would be likely that people would include the group in
cross-posts to other groups, or that followup discussion would also be
posted into the newsgroup, obscuring the longer articles the group was
intended to feature.

When the group was originally proposed, the rationale for moderation
was:

A number of netters brought up this group as a very strong desire
at Oshkosh. People felt that one of the greatest strengths of the
net was the "I was there" stories -- stories which are very
different from the semi-sanitized accounts one sees in commercial
magazines. The desire was to have a forum for these longer
stories, one in which (a) it could be ensured that they'd be
easily found, (b) they wouldn't be intermixed with other stuff,
and (c) they wouldn't get drowned out by follow-ups. A moderated
newsgroup makes sense in this case, and also will allow a final
formatting check to be done to ensure that the articles are easy
to read (line lengths, etc.).

The group was expected to be relatively low volume (perhaps one or 2
articles per week) so that it could easily be hand moderated.

So, given the rationale for moderation cited above, and the desire to
see stories actually published in the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup,
what is the appropriate procedure for establishing a new moderator so
that the newsgroup can become functional again?

Bring it to the attention of the Big-8 Management Board



It is somewhat unlikely(*) that they will actually find a new
moderator. They can publicize that there is an apparent vacancy, and
assign a new moderator if a volunteer steps forward.

(*) In the past, Brian Edmonds, who is a board member, has identified
a number of newsgroups that had missing moderators, and revived them
(not successful in all cases). The board has also recently begun
robomoderating soc.religion.hindu, with so far rather desultory
results. For moderation to really be successful, it may be that the
moderator needs to have an active interest in the topic of his group.

And in the future, if
a moderator should disappear, what is the proper procedure for
installing a replacement to assume that role?

Bring it to the attention of the Big-8 Management Board



It would also make sense to bring it up in other unmoderated
newsgroups and news.groups. It would help if there are other people
who are interested in the newsgroup. One advantage that the Big 8
Management Board has is that they may post a notice to the moderated
newsgroup (ordinary folks might be able to do this if they know how,
but it is somewhat frowned on).

In the past, there really wasn't much that could be done. Moderated
newsgroups have generally been considered to be "owned" by their
moderator. They could gift their group to a new moderator who would
then own it. They can request that their group be removed. In some
cases, this has been refused - and the moderators have simply walked
away.

Because of the sense that a moderator owns their group, there has been
an absolute refusal to get involved in actively changing moderators.
This is a reasonable policy. In some cases, the moderator may have
good intentions to restart moderation - but fail to acquire the round
tuits necessary to do so.

I have been proposing removal of the longest-abandoned newsgroups. I
an currently up to groups that last had approvals in 1997. I would
eventually like to get up to perhaps 2 years of inactivity. In
general, that is probably too long for a revival to be notably
successful. But at least it should get to the point where it is
considered abnormal for a moderated group to not have a moderator.
--
Jim Riley