Withdrawal RFD rec.aviation.questions removal.

[Jim Riley]

The RFD for rec.aviation.questions is being withdrawn at this time.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

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

[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

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:32:29 GMT, Jim Riley >
wrote in et>:

>[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&scoring=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?

[Kathy Morgan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:32:29 GMT, Jim Riley >
> wrote in et>:
>
> >[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

[Paul Tomblin]

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

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

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.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

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 are:

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.

[Martin Hotze]

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 are:
>
>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/>

[Jim Riley]

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 are:
>>
>>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

[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 et>:
>
>>[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

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 07:32:11 GMT, Jim Riley 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)
(...)
>I would use a test of utiltity or whether there is desire for a
>particular newsgroup. think it may vary among the 4 groups.

I am only participating in r.a.p, but IBTD.

>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.

I see your point, but the existing (well ..) FAQ is more than out of date,
not only not reflecting major changes in the way things work (after 9/11)
these days, but also lacking latest regulations regarding sport pilot
licenses and such.

>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"

ACK. There is (for example) the annual OSH fly-in, but this event is widely
discussed every single year in r.a.p (and followed by invitations to a
party to a hotel owned by a regular).

>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.

you have: piloting, student, owning
if you have general questions you post to .piloting
if you want to know something training-related you post to .student
and finally, if you own an aircraft and you have specific questions, well,
then you should post to .owning (same goes for military and homebuild)

>I think rec.aviation.stories has the most potential. It was intended

in theory: yes.
one might have more success with a new group rec.aviation.politics :-)

>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.

There are maybe 1 or 2 postings in rap worth to be sent to r.a.stories, but
the evolving discussions will then bring you back to
rec.aviation.poli^wpiloting ... so IMHO there is no need for said groups,
keep it slim, but YMMD.

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

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 08:11:46 GMT, Jim Riley > wrote in
t>:

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

>>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

>

The board has noticed Larry's posts.

We know the post is vacant due to the tragic death of
the moderator this summer.

Speaking only for myself and not the board, I would
favor accepting a volunteer to take over the post
in rec.aviation.stories as soon as possible.

>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.

Yes. I would argue that there is no need for a
long time spent publicizing the "apparent vacancy"
because the missing moderator was well-known in the
rec.aviation.* hierarchy and his death was well-publicized.

What is needed is a volunteer with the necessary skills
to manage the moderation software:

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:moderation

>(*) 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.

I think we also failed to find a moderator for soc.religion.shamanism.

>> 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

>

See this page, too:

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.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:46:29 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>:

>
>What is needed is a volunteer with the necessary skills
>to manage the moderation software:
>
>http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:moderation

While I have not previously performed the function of a moderator, I
do have some familiarity with Unix and news administration, and a
desire to see rec.aviation.stories restored to operational status. So
if it agreeable with those with the authority to approve such matters,
I am willing to fulfill that function for some period of time.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:38:55 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in >:

>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:46:29 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>:
>
>>
>>What is needed is a volunteer with the necessary skills
>>to manage the moderation software:
>>
>>http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:moderation
>
>While I have not previously performed the function of a moderator, I
>do have some familiarity with Unix and news administration, and a
>desire to see rec.aviation.stories restored to operational status. So
>if it agreeable with those with the authority to approve such matters,
>I am willing to fulfill that function for some period of time.

Larry, I think you're a good candidate.

I've forwarded your note to the board.

Stay tuned.

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

[Kathy Morgan]

Martin X. Moleski, SJ > wrote:

> Speaking only for myself and not the board, I would
> favor accepting a volunteer to take over the post
> in rec.aviation.stories as soon as possible.

So also would I.

--
Kathy, speaking only for myself