REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group comp.lang.go
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.go
Personally, the thought of a group of people deciding what is spam and
who to censor bothers me. Especially here, where we have likely participants who are well versed in computer usage and should be able to
set up workable filters. Moderated groups are far less user friendly, though certainly some people are willing to put up with it because of
their own laziness in using filters. Either make it
moderated/unmoderated at the start, or risk losing participants when
someone decides it's time to change. I don't like starting a group with this uncertainty.
CHARTER:
comp.lang.go will be a unmoderated group, that could be upgraded to
moderated later if we get too much spam, where people interested in the
Go programming language can share ideas and topics, help each other, and
keep up with interesting projects.
CHARTER:
comp.lang.go will be a unmoderated group, that could be upgraded to
moderated later if we get too much spam, where people interested in the
Go programming language can share ideas and topics, help each other, and
keep up with interesting projects.
Personally, the thought of a group of people deciding what is spam
and who to censor bothers me.
Especially here, where we have likely
participants who are well versed in computer usage and should be able
to set up workable filters.
Either make it moderated/unmoderated at the start, or risk losing participants when someone decides it's time to change. I don't like
starting a group with this uncertainty.
Am 22.09.2023 um 11:59:31 Uhr schrieb Richard Kettlewell:
Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> writes:
CHARTER:
comp.lang.go will be a unmoderated group, that could be upgraded to
moderated later if we get too much spam, where people interested in
the Go programming language can share ideas and topics, help each
other, and keep up with interesting projects.
I don’t think changing moderation status is very practical. If (in the
future) a moderated group seems like a good idea (and the resources to
make it work are available) a separate comp.lang.go.moderated could be
created. i.e. I think the clause about a potential change in status
should be deleted.
Why is there a need for moderation?
As for the spam from Google, moderators will most likely block
everything that comes from Google Groups until the shitheads from
Google care about abuse of their users.
Instead they will receive hundreds of spam mail a day.
Nobody can read groups on Google Groups that are filled with hundreds
of spam messages per day, so these users also won't post via Google
Groups.
Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that
was just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the
option open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get
to the point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will
happen) so just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel
better, but as you guys can see that is only in a comment not really
how is going to end up.
Ok, that "comment" about maybe in the future making it moderated is at
the worse case scenario, not because someone posted someone else does
not like, also as you all know making it moderated is a hard task to do
and maintain so, as some of you mention as long google groups is not
touching it the rest of us are well versed in technical and nettiquete
ways.
Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that was
just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the option
open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get to the
point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will happen) so
just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel better, but as you
guys can see that is only in a comment not really how is going to end
up.
Am 22.09.2023 um 11:41:42 Uhr schrieb candycanearter07:
Agreed, it's supposed to be the USER-net.
Agreed, but there are some places where not all users should be able
to post any bullshit.
This can and has been part of the Usenet for a long time.
Ok, that "comment" about maybe in the future making it moderated is at
the worse case scenario, not because someone posted someone else does
not like, also as you all know making it moderated is a hard task to do
and maintain so, as some of you mention as long google groups is not
touching it the rest of us are well versed in technical and nettiquete
ways.
Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that was
just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the option
open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get to the
point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will happen) so
just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel better, but as you
guys can see that is only in a comment not really how is going to end
up.
I advocate for creating that group as it is proposed - unmoderated.
If there is really no traffic at all after some time (IIRC there are
users interested in go), it can be deleted.
But I think it should be advocated in lang groups, also in other
hierarchies like de.* and fr.*.
While we're at it and that there seems to be an impulse to make a move ahead for the Big-8 groups, wouldn't a comp.lang.rust group also be useful nowadays?
And maybe another one for Android and iOS apps development? (either a generic one for mobile development, or their specific languages which currently are Kotlin and Swift)
On 9/22/23 13:25, Marco Moock wrote:
Why is there a need for moderation?
As for the spam from Google, moderators will most likely block
everything that comes from Google Groups until the shitheads from
Google care about abuse of their users.
Google will *probably* never care about Usenet, but hey there's a
chance.
While we're at it and that there seems to be an impulse to make a move
ahead for the Big-8 groups, wouldn't a comp.lang.rust group also be
useful nowadays?
I don’t think changing moderation status is very practical. If (in the future) a moderated group seems like a good idea (and the resources to
make it work are available) a separate comp.lang.go.moderated could be created. i.e. I think the clause about a potential change in status
should be deleted.
Let me make the point more clearly: it is not going to be possible to
switch an existing non-moderated group to moderated in a reliable
way. If there is ever to be a moderated group, it needs to be a
_different_ group.
The option of changing it to a different status basically does not
exist, and putting it in the charter that it does would be futile.
Greetings.
On 2023-09-22 19:59, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
I don’t think changing moderation status is very practical. If (in the
future) a moderated group seems like a good idea (and the resources to
make it work are available) a separate comp.lang.go.moderated could be
created. i.e. I think the clause about a potential change in status
should be deleted.
Back in July we advised the RFD's proponent about the impracticality of changing the moderation status of a group, but it seems they decided not
to revise this clause of the RFD before submitting it for voting.
Speaking personally, I'm not bothered about the clause as I consider it
to be ineffective and therefore not binding. That is, the group's
charter notwithstanding, any subsequent change in moderation status
would not be automatic but rather would have to go through a formal RFD process.
The proponent is of course free to withdraw the RFD and resubmit it
without the problematic moderation clause. Otherwise the Board will
vote on the RFD as-is on Friday, 29 September.
Regards,
Tristan
I'm just curious about what would go wrong if comp.lang.go is made
moderated after its creation.
I'm of course OK that there is no "reliable way" to ensure it is done
at every news sites, but what if it is done?
As far as I see:
- on news servers which do not honour control articles, comp.lang.go
won't be created, so making it moderated does not change anything;
- on news servers which honour the newgroup control article for its
creation but not subsequent newgroup control articles (does such a configuration exist?), well we'll end up with an unmoderated
comp.lang.go newsgroups on these servers whereas its true status is moderated. Which implies that this unmoderated newsgroup will go on receiving all posted articles to it (which is fine, but unfortunately
for their users, all the associated spam/abuse/flood/trolling/...).
The only point would be for the "well-administered" news servers
(synonym of Marco's "good tone") which have this newsgroup moderated.
They would be relieved from spam (which is fine) but do not see
articles posted to news servers which do not honour subsequent
newgroup control articles (these articles would be refused because of
lack of the Approved header field).
I am unsure this configuration exist for news servers (but I may be
wrong) and even if this was the case, the readers of the moderated
newsgroup won't just see postings from other "non-administered" news
servers. It is the only drawback, and the importance just depends on
the point of view taken (some will say it does not matter at all as
the contribution of the users of these "non-administered" servers are considered to be of "less quality", while others will say that the
moderated newsgroup will miss some useful postings).
That's a matter of point of view, but naturally if the readers of the moderated
newsgroup prefer to read spam/flood/etc. they can migrate to such a
news server providing them all these sorts of abuse.
I bet that these servers which would not follow subsequent newgroup
control articles while having accepted the first one do not actively
fight spam/flood to provide a decent reader experience...
The option of changing it to a different status basically does not
exist, and putting it in the charter that it does would be futile.
I'm not really convinced the option does not exist but I may have
overlooked something.
So if everyone wants us to remove it, beat it, as I said it makes no difference to have it or not. Just whatever it makes everyone happier
I just wanted to speed the process a bit by not removing it.
rek2 hispagatos <rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid> writes:
Ok, that "comment" about maybe in the future making it moderated is at
the worse case scenario, not because someone posted someone else does
not like, also as you all know making it moderated is a hard task to do
and maintain so, as some of you mention as long google groups is not
touching it the rest of us are well versed in technical and nettiquete
ways.
Let me make the point more clearly: it is not going to be possible to
switch an existing non-moderated group to moderated in a reliable
way. If there is ever to be a moderated group, it needs to be a
_different_ group.
Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that was
just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the option
open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get to the
point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will happen) so
just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel better, but as you
guys can see that is only in a comment not really how is going to end
up.
The option of changing it to a different status basically does not
exist, and putting it in the charter that it does would be futile.
It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more than) a couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts of spam and off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!
Robert
- on news servers which honour the newgroup control article for its
creation but not subsequent newgroup control articles (does such a
configuration exist?), well we'll end up with an unmoderated
comp.lang.go newsgroups on these servers whereas its true status is
moderated.
Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:
- on news servers which honour the newgroup control article for its
creation but not subsequent newgroup control articles (does such a
configuration exist?), well we'll end up with an unmoderated
comp.lang.go newsgroups on these servers whereas its true status is
moderated.
Historically, the concern was that there were a lot of news servers that
were otherwise well-administered (not large sources of spam, for instance) but that never honored control messages of any kind, and instead just
added groups on user request. A user would request the group be added, it
is added as unmoderated, it's then made moderated, nothing ever changes on that server, and local users post into a void and may not realize that
their posts are being dropped.
I don't know how likely this is any more. Usenet is a much smaller place than it used to be.
Maybe there could be a normal message sent notifying of the new status?
Then it might be caught by a user. Or is there a newsgroup that every
server should have maybe?
On 9/25/23 13:43, Robert Prins wrote:
It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more than) a couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts of spam and off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!
Robert
And did it work?
On 9/25/23 13:43, Robert Prins wrote:
It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more
than) a couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts
of spam and off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!
Robert
And did it work?
Maybe there could be a normal message sent notifying of the new
status? Then it might be caught by a user. Or is there a newsgroup
that every server should have maybe?
Am 25.09.2023 um 13:05:30 Uhr schrieb candycanearter07:
Maybe there could be a normal message sent notifying of the new
status? Then it might be caught by a user. Or is there a newsgroup
that every server should have maybe?
Normally, the control messages have that purpose and hierarchy changes
are being discussed and announced in admin groups too, like here for
big 8.
The RfD is also posted in a group and most times in relevant groups
too, so there is a high probability that admins and users know about
the changes if they want to.
There are also servers that aren't administered anymore, either by the software version of by the hierarchy.
Most likely nobody cares anymore in that case.
Let me make the point more clearly: it is not going to be possible to
switch an existing non-moderated group to moderated in a reliable
way. If there is ever to be a moderated group, it needs to be a
_different_ group.
I'm just curious about what would go wrong if comp.lang.go is made
moderated after its creation.
I'm of course OK that there is no "reliable way" to ensure it is done
at every news sites, but what if it is done?
Seems obviously necessary.
On 9/27/2023 06:20, Xenophon wrote:
Seems obviously necessary.
"Obviously necessary" because?
Are people seriously discussing about Golang and its projects in Usenet?
If so, in which newsgroups? Is this *existing* discussion, if there's
any and I still haven't seen anyone prove yet despite plenty of people supporting this RFD for some reason, causing problems to existing
newsgroups such that it warrants the "obvious" qualifier?
Someone’s been doing some Go NNTP work and talking about from time to
time in one of the news.* groups.
Anyway the group would be harmless even if it does turn out to be
essentially unused (which is already the case for huge numbers of
groups).
On 9/25/23 13:43, Robert Prins wrote:
It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more than) a
couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts of spam and
off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!
Robert
And did it work?
The outcome is that posts generated on out-of-date servers aren’t sent
to the moderator software, and are dropped on updated servers because
they lack the approval header. Effectively the posts aren’t propagated properly and the users don’t get any direct feedback that this is
happening - they just chatter unknowingly into the void.
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The outcome is that posts generated on out-of-date servers aren’t sent
to the moderator software, and are dropped on updated servers because
they lack the approval header. Effectively the posts aren’t propagated
properly and the users don’t get any direct feedback that this is
happening - they just chatter unknowingly into the void.
I wonder if you could have a bot that listens for postings without the approval header and emails the sender to let them know. It would
probably end up replying to a lot of spam, but maybe you could
restrict it to replies on existing threads (which spammers also do,
but to a lesser extent).
No help if people post with invalid email addresses, but that's the
tradeoff you make when choosing to post that way.
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
No help if people post with invalid email addresses, but that's the
tradeoff you make when choosing to post that way.
I don’t think I considered “lack of hypothetical notifications about equally hypothetical misconfigured news servers” when I made that
decision l-)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 475 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 36:17:05 |
| Calls: | 9,490 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,617 |
| Messages: | 6,121,172 |