![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[I'm posting from news.groups]
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:53:58 -0700, Bob Fry wrote: "LD" == Larry Dighera writes: LD 4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal. LD 5. The board votes on the proposal. What board is this? The Big 8 Management Board (aka B8MB). About 15 years ago I created a new group in comp.lang, and the rule then was that a certain percentage of all voters had to be in favor of the proposal. Certainly there was no "board". Or do you mean all the people reading and voting on the proposal? In October 2002, a trio consisting of Russ Allbery, Todd McComb, and Piranha too over from David C. Lawrence (aka Tale) as moderators of news.announce.newgroups (aka nan). In that role, they continued to oversee the process that you had participated in 15 years ago. Brian Edmonds later joined the 2002 group. Last fall, they decided that the process simply wasn't working any longer. Groups such as yours simply weren't able to get enough votes. Other groups got enough votes only through ballot stuffing, which produced groups with no one using them. After some discussion, they (the moderators of nan) turned[*] the entire group creation process to a group of persons who have desiganted themselves the Big 8 Management Board, who have devised a new process to create new groups. It is similar to the old process in that it begins with a discussion. It differs in that the final decision is not made by a public vote, but by the members of the B8MB. The intent of the "vote" in the old process was to demonstrate that there was enough interest in discussing the topic of the proposed group such that the group would be successful. The B8MB most likely would expect a level of interest in using the new group. I just read back through the thread in the rec.aviation.* groups. I question whether a rec.aviation.politics group would be successful unless those persons who engaged in such discussion actually moved to the new group. It may be that they simply want to discuss politics with other pilots and other aviation enthusiasts. Pilots and enthusiasts who are interested primarily in flying, but sometimes respond in the political threads, might not be inclined to subscribe to a new group devoted to political discussion. There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a more focused group. -- Jim Riley |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
An ACE goes down in flames. | PoBoy | Naval Aviation | 25 | December 9th 05 01:30 PM |
McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 2 | August 11th 04 05:25 AM |
? About Senator John McCain | Pechs1 | Naval Aviation | 6 | June 21st 04 10:57 PM |
Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 196 | June 14th 04 11:33 PM |
F/A-22's getting cancelled? | p6pentiumpro | Military Aviation | 0 | April 16th 04 09:32 AM |