Proposal For A New Rec.Aviation Newsgroup. (WAS: McCain in '08)

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:48:26 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote in ::

It was serious.

Then here's all you have to do:


http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...icies:creation

Overview
Each of these steps is described in more detail below.

1. (optional) The proponent may start an informal discussion in
news.groups and in related groups about the proposed group.

2. The proponent submits a Request For Discussion (RFD) to
news.announce.newgroups.

3. Discussion of the RFD takes place primarily in news.groups.

4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.

5. The board votes on the proposal.

6. If the proposal passes, it is implemented.


It sure look simple. To begin the process, start a message thread
with the subject: RFD rec.aviation.politics, and cross post it to
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.ifr, and new.groups.


Or, go right to it:

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, 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”.)

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.

"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?

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 a previous article, Bob Fry said:
"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?

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?

The methodology changed after Tale retired.

The email voter system was fundamentally flawed because people were
stuffing the ballot box, so now there is a board that decides whether the
group's proponent has put forward a case that a group is needed or
deserved.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I complained that finding a solution to problems with Microsoft software
would be impossible if profanity was blocked, as few people can discuss
Microsoft's programs without using profanity." DarrylJ on alt.folklore.urban

In news.groups Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, Bob Fry said:
"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?

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?

The methodology changed after Tale retired.

The email voter system was fundamentally flawed because people were
stuffing the ballot box, so now there is a board that decides whether the
group's proponent has put forward a case that a group is needed or
deserved.

No, the small group of jerks who took tale's place lied about the
system being "fundamentally flawed" as an excuse to abolish voting,
abandon their posts and turn over control to a larger group of jerks,
who now call themselves "the Board."

--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
| if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"

[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

"Jim Riley" wrote

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.

Unfortunately, there would be people join the new group that don't have
enough self control to keep from posting political crap.

Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!
--
Jim in NC

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

"Jim Riley" wrote

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.

Unfortunately, there would be people join the new group that don't have
enough self control to keep from posting political crap.

I thought that the proposal for the EAA group was totally disjoint from
that for rec.aviation.politics. Basically, someone who saw the
discussion about another new group, had the thought that if you were
going to create a group, why not make one that had something to do with
airplanes.

I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.

Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!
--
Jim Riley

Jim Riley wrote:


I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.

So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Jim Riley" wrote

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.

Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.


Unfortunately, there would be people join the new group that don't have
enough self control to keep from posting political crap.

Those exist on nearly every group I've seen. Whether they have an
agenda, or they are trolling the effect is the same.


Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!

Agreed. I think we have more than enough groups with enough topics
already and one more would just dilute the existing ones leaving us
with a higher signal to noise ratio. There will always be a signal to
noise ratio that rises and falls on any non-moderated group and some
moderated ones. They come and go. Ignore 'em and sooner of later they
finally get tired or Darwinism cleans the gene pool. Admittedly some
come from the shallow end of the pool and will post for the sake of
posting whether ignored or not. However those posters tend to follow
the groups. Normally a subject line says it all. One look and I know
if I want to read it, ignore it, kill file the thread, or killfile the
poster.

Of all options, new news groups, complaining, arguing with the poster,
or the delete key, delete is the easiest, and by far the least
stressful.

To me another aviation group is just a waste of time and computing
resources.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400, Roger
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Jim Riley" wrote

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.

Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.

Quite possibly true. This has happened in several of the rec.aviation.*
groups (ballooning, hang-gliding, powerchutes).
--
Jim Riley