From Newsgroup: news.groups

Big-8 Management Board wrote:

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

On 28.10.2024 um 21:51 Uhr Steve Bonine wrote:

Big-8 Management Board wrote:

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.

If there is no interest in reviving the group, it will be deleted, but
we decided to ask the community first.
--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1730148715muell@cartoonies.org
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

In article <vfpdib$18fbv$1@dont-email.me>, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote: >Big-8 Management Board wrote:

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.

Would a complete revote be required in order to make this group
unmoderated?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:

Big-8 Management Board wrote:

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.

Would a complete revote be required in order to make this group
unmoderated?

Unmoderation in place? Let's not go there.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Greetings.

On 2024-10-30 20:16, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Would a complete revote be required in order to make this group
unmoderated?

No, that's something the Board could simply ask the ISC to do. We'd
just rather not do this as it's possible some servers carrying the group
might not pick up on the change in status. A while back we polled news.admin.moderation for comments on how likely a problem this would
be, but didn't get much in the way of responses.

Regards,
Tristan
--
Usenet Big-8 Management Board
https://www.big-8.org/
board@big-8.org
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Tristan Miller <tmiller@big-8.org> wrote:

On 2024-10-30 20:16, Marco Moock wrote:

Technically that means it will be deleted and a new one without
moderation will be created.

Not necessarily -- it seems that RFC 5537 Sec 5.2.1 ><https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5537.html#section-5.2.1> describes a >mechanism for a change of moderation status:

The newgroup control message requests that the specified group be
created or, if already existing, that its moderation status or
description be changed.

There is a standard for control message syntax that the hierarchy
administrator must follow because that's a network issue. But hierarchy administrators don't run Usenet; News administrators do.

checkgroups is the hierarchy administrator's official statement of the
set of newsgroups -- with moderation flag set or unset -- of groups he recognizes.

No News administrator can be forced to process a control message. No
News administrator is ever forced to recognize the exact same set of
newsgroups recognized by the hierarchy administrator. And if the News administrator won't change the moderation flag by processing a
subsequent newgroup or checkgroups, there's nothing to be done about it.

We've had this discussion for decade upon decade upon decade. Moderation
in place or unmoderation in place cannot be expected to work on every
News site within some reasonable period of time after the newgroup
message is sent.

For that reason, don't screw with the moderation flag.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2