Re: The Soft Wreck ?

Page 2 of 4  


Right now it's just at the discussion stage. If it actually moves to the CFV (Call For Votes) stage I'll be surprised.
But it will have little effect on this news group, regardless of the outcome.
djb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This off-topic thread wouldn't exist on a moderated newsgroup.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Any thread that pertains to this particular newsgroup as a whole is on topic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What I meant to say is that this thread would be off topic in the proposed moderated group.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Understood, but it might be on topic there since it does deal with the creation of a new group on the same topic.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

proposed
I guess that would depend on the open-mindedness of the secret, un-named moderators.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Balderstone wrote:

Has a single person here said they would migrate ?
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

snipped-for-privacy@XXXXcarolina.rr.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's not relevant to the *process* of creating a new newsgroup in the "big 8" hierarchy (which includes rec.*)
It doesn't matter if anyone who frequents this newsgroup supports the proposed new group or not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:29:50 -0600, Dave Balderstone

It's been a while, what is the criteria for moving from the request for comment to call for vote? Also, what is the required number of votes for new group creation to pass?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The proponent may call the vote any time after the minimum 21-day discussion period. If there are technical problems with the proposal, one or more RFDs might be submitted by the proponent before he/she requests the CFV (Call For Votes). However, this is entirely up to the proponent. If the proponent answers most of the questions in the RFD, he/she is not required to change anything. It does increase the chance of passing the group if at least a second RFD is done, though it is not required. RFDs after the first one have a minimum 10-day discussion period.
The voting period lasts 21 days. In order for a group to pass, two things must happen:
1. The "yes" votes must outnumber the "no" votes by at least 100.
2. There must be at least 2 "yes" votes for every "no" vote
Examples of passing voter outcomes:
YES: 100 NO: 0
YES: 101 NO: 1
YES: 300 NO: 150
Examples of failing voter outcomes:
YES: 100 NO: 1
YES: 99 NO: 2
YES: 299 NO: 150
--
Bill

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

... snip
Thanks, as I said, it's been a number of years since I've had any exposure to the process at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

NOT QUITE CORRECT -- the 'yes' votes must be at least 2/3 of the _total_ votes cast. Allowed votes are 'yes', 'no', and 'abstain'.
e.g.: 200 'yes' votes, 10 'no' votes, and 100 'abstain' votes, and the proposal _fails_.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:33:14 +0000, snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

Robert,     If the moderated 'wreck succeeds, the unmoderated version remains, correct? If so, those of us who could care less about a moderated version need not follow the goings on?
I'm trying to properly understand this.
Thanks, Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Correct.
There is the question of if you think it might bleed off some of the good discussion in the unmoderated group, and whether or not that might be a 'bad thing'.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

*sigh* Procedures have _changed_ since I was last involved in a newgroup proposal. Bill had it right. I'm wrong. Current rule _is_ 2 yes votes for every no vote. 'abstain' votes do _not_ figure into it. The *only* current use for an 'abstain' vote is to 'cancel out' your prior 'yes' or 'no', when you do _not_ want to cast the vote for the 'other side' of the proposition.
There is currently utterly _no_ point in casting an -initial- 'abstain' vote.
The only use for 'abstain' is if you change your mind _during_ the voting period -- from a vote on either side of the issue to 'no opinion'/'un-decided'.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote in

To cancel out a prior vote, you submit another vote and choose CANCEL. The four possible choices are YES, NO, ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. If you cancel a vote, your name and e-mail address will be deleted from the record..as if you never voted in the first place. If you change your vote to ABSTAIN, your name and e-mail address will appear in the results.

The abstain vote is generally reserved for those who participated in the RFD, but do not plan to use the group if created, or do not have a technical objection to the creation of the group.
--
Bill

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote in

The Big-8 newsgroup creation system is very confusing. There are currently discussions taking place in news.groups about changing that system.
--
Bill

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Balderstone wrote:

I understand that. There are hundreds of newsgroups out there with similar sounding names but no posters. They sit empty, devoid of any content other than that of spammers who shotgun the system.
I doubt the new one is going to be successful. Generally speaking, there would have to be a need for the change, and nobody here has seen one. Is there a group of folks out there so horrified by our present group that they refuse to participate with us and would only go to a moderated newsgroup?
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

snipped-for-privacy@XXXXcarolina.rr.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is of concern to those who administer the newsgroups. To that end, it does matter if anyone supports the proposed newsgroup to the extent that the administrators won't create it if it appears likely to become another empty group.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:30:00 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"

Who _cares_? If some people don't like the Wreck and want a different group, let them create it. Why is everyone so against this new group, anyway? If they don't like it, they won't even freakin' BE there. It's not like it would be taking anything away from the Wreck, and anyone could visit both forums if they chose to do so. What's the problem?
Whadda buncha maroons.
------------------------------------------------------- Have you read the new book "What Would Machiavelli Do?" ---------------------------- http://diversify.com Dynamic, Interactive Websites! --------------------------------------------------------
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.