[snip] In practice, the Big-8 Management Board considers
the third alternative - changing the status of the group from
moderated to unmoderated - as likely to cause more harm than good.
[snip]
I am sincerely curious.
The moderator announced his retirement in July 2013.
According that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia, the last release of
plan9 was in early 2015.
With dozens of dead newsgroups, why this one? There is no hint in the
MVI that there is any interest in this OS, much less in a newsgroup.
Dear Steve,
On 2024-10-28 22:51, Steve Bonine wrote:
I am sincerely curious.
The moderator announced his retirement in July 2013.
According that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia, the last release of
plan9 was in early 2015.
With dozens of dead newsgroups, why this one? There is no hint in the
MVI that there is any interest in this OS, much less in a newsgroup.
The MVI was prompted by one of the directors of the Plan 9 Foundation,
who had written to the Board with the intention of reviving the
newsgroup, perhaps via a bidirectional gateway to the 9fans mailing
list. He suggested converting the group to unmoderated, but as this is
a rather experimental solution, we proposed running an MVI, at least as
a first step, to see if the group could remain moderated.
Yes, perhaps we should have mentioned this in the MVI. I have written
to the director in question to let him know about the MVI so that he can weigh in.
Regards,
Tristan
Tristan Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Steve,
On 2024-10-28 22:51, Steve Bonine wrote:
I am sincerely curious.
The moderator announced his retirement in July 2013.
According that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia, the last release of
plan9 was in early 2015.
With dozens of dead newsgroups, why this one? There is no hint in the
MVI that there is any interest in this OS, much less in a newsgroup.
The MVI was prompted by one of the directors of the Plan 9 Foundation,
who had written to the Board with the intention of reviving the
newsgroup, perhaps via a bidirectional gateway to the 9fans mailing
list. He suggested converting the group to unmoderated, but as this is
a rather experimental solution, we proposed running an MVI, at least as
a first step, to see if the group could remain moderated.
Yes, perhaps we should have mentioned this in the MVI. I have written
to the director in question to let him know about the MVI so that he can
weigh in.
Regards,
Tristan
Hi, I am the director in question. :-)
Steve, that does not give a adequate picture of the activity around Plan 9. In the last few years, the Foundation has been formed, recently got its 501(c)(3) status, and has hosted two instances of the International
Workshop on Plan 9, after a hiatus of (from memory) eight years. There are two active public forks/distributions, as well as a number of smaller or
one off projects using it as a base.
My conversation with the Big 8 board stalled mostly because I was
indecisive about what to do about the bridge to our old mailing list. Since then, we have been moving farther and farther away from it, and it seems pretty certain re-creating the bridge would be a bad idea at this point.
I don’t know what the right answer is about moderation. I read several unmoderated news groups which are great, but I’ve also had to abandon a couple which had turned into trash fires. Simply naming a new moderator is certainly the simplest path. I am interested, but also don’t wanna be a single point of failure. I’ve asked on her mailing list if anybody’s willing to work with me on it. I was hoping to get farther with that before responding to the MVI, but since I was (obliquely) mentioned… :-)
Tristan Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Steve,
I don’t know what the right answer is about moderation. I read several unmoderated news groups which are great, but I’ve also had to abandon a couple which had turned into trash fires. Simply naming a new moderator is certainly the simplest path. I am interested, but also don’t wanna be a single point of failure. I’ve asked on her mailing list if anybody’s willing to work with me on it. I was hoping to get farther with that before responding to the MVI, but since I was (obliquely) mentioned… :-)
In this case, nobody has a moral 'right' to be the owner - moderator
of this newsgroup, and it should become *unmoderated*.
I don't see a reason for the removal of the newsgroup based on the
current state of Usenet. It's full of dead newsgroups and junkyards.
If just few people are still interested in this newsgroup, it should
stay alive.
This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun
because the moderated newsgroup comp.os.plan9 is not functioning,
and has been abandoned by its moderator.
I am sincerely curious.
The moderator announced his retirement in July 2013.
According that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia, the last release of
plan9 was in early 2015.
With dozens of dead newsgroups, why this one? There is no hint in the
MVI that there is any interest in this OS, much less in a newsgroup.
Such stuff should be removed to make it easier for people to find
places where discussion occurs. That's why the board discusses this.
Can somebody ask at the place where the plan 9 people currently discuss
if there is interest?
On 29.10.2024 um 17:08 Uhr morena wrote:
In this case, nobody has a moral 'right' to be the owner - moderator
of this newsgroup, and it should become *unmoderated*.
Technically that means it will be deleted and a new one without
moderation will be created.
I don't see a reason for the removal of the newsgroup based on the
current state of Usenet. It's full of dead newsgroups and junkyards.
Such stuff should be removed to make it easier for people to find
places where discussion occurs. That's why the board discusses this.
If just few people are still interested in this newsgroup, it should
stay alive.
That's the question.
Can somebody ask at the place where the plan 9 people currently discuss
if there is interest?
I would like to keep the group moderated. I am up for assuming that
role (having lined up help).
On 29.10.2024 um 17:08 Uhr morena wrote:
In this case, nobody has a moral 'right' to be the owner - moderator
of this newsgroup, and it should become *unmoderated*.
Technically that means it will be deleted and a new one without
moderation will be created.
Technically that means it will be deleted and a new one without
moderation will be created.
So starting from scratch?
The old contents was public readable, is there any reason that it has to
be lost?
Technically that means it will be deleted and a new one without
moderation will be created.
The newgroup control message requests that the specified group be
created or, if already existing, that its moderation status or
description be changed.
On 30.10.2024 um 22:29 Uhr Anthony wrote:
I would like to keep the group moderated. I am up for assuming that
role (having lined up help).
Great!
Do you already have moderation infrastructure?
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 23:30:36 CSTits registered moderator goes dormant or incommunicado. In this way, any and every moderated group would always have fallback moderation.
Anthony <[email protected]> wrote:
Tristan Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Steve,
<snip>
I don’t know what the right answer is about moderation. I read several
unmoderated news groups which are great, but I’ve also had to abandon a
couple which had turned into trash fires. Simply naming a new moderator is >> certainly the simplest path. I am interested, but also don’t wanna be a
single point of failure. I’ve asked on her mailing list if anybody’s
willing to work with me on it. I was hoping to get farther with that before >> responding to the MVI, but since I was (obliquely) mentioned… :-)
I suggest to the Big8 board to establish a fallback moderator pool consisting of every registered moderator and a trio or quartet of 'super mods'. This pool would consist of fallback moderators who would begin moderating a group if it falls dormant or
Working on it. Waiting on confirmation from my current provider that they’ll allow injecting messages with the Approved header set (pending the conclusion if the MVI). Also more testing to do. But nearly there.
On 30.10.2024 um 22:29 Uhr Anthony wrote:
Do you already have moderation infrastructure?
Working on it. Waiting on confirmation from my current provider that they’ll allow injecting messages with the Approved header set (pending the conclusion if the MVI). Also more testing to do. But nearly there.
Dear Anthony,
On 2024-11-03 15:03, Anthony wrote:
Working on it. Waiting on confirmation from my current provider that
they’ll allow injecting messages with the Approved header set (pending the >> conclusion if the MVI). Also more testing to do. But nearly there.
Any update on this yet? If you can confirm that you've got the
moderation setup in place, we'd be happy to conclude the MVI. Let us
know if you need any help.
Regards,
Tristan
Tristan Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Anthony,
On 2024-11-03 15:03, Anthony wrote:
Working on it. Waiting on confirmation from my current provider that
they’ll allow injecting messages with the Approved header set (pending the
conclusion if the MVI). Also more testing to do. But nearly there.
Any update on this yet? If you can confirm that you've got the
moderation setup in place, we'd be happy to conclude the MVI. Let us
know if you need any help.
Regards,
Tristan
Infrastructure now in place, including confirming that my provider will accept the appropriate header once the MVI is concluded.
Infrastructure now in place, including confirming that my provider will accept the appropriate header once the MVI is concluded.
That's great. I'll get in touch with you by e-mail to finalize things,
and then hopefully we can conclude the MVI.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:09:17 |
| Calls: | 12,108 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,267 |