The call for votes (CFV) has been issued for the splinter group
"rec.woodworking.all-ages" proposed by Vito Kuhn <[email protected]>
and Susan Welchel <[email protected]>
Reference message ID is <[email protected]>
Read the instructions in the CFV and follow them if you want your
ballot counted. Voting closes October 21 at 1 second to midnight UTC.
The CFV should appear in the following groups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
free.uk.woodworking
rec.crafts.woodturning
rec.woodworking
but I don't see it here on the wreck yet.
I've submitted my ballot...
djb
In article <[email protected]>, a.t.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been lurking here for a few months and I see how everything here
> works. However, I have one concern with the new group. If this
> rec.woodworking.all-ages actually happens.. will rec.woodworking
> become rec.woodworking.*?
No. rec.woodwoorking will not change.
> And if so, won't we be flooded with cross
> posts from people who just want an answer about some basic thing and
> are trying to post to as many groups as possible? I see that this
> happens all the time in that kind of group (look at rec.antiques for
> example.)
I think that's certainly a possibility. I had a very short private
exchange with one of the proponents of the new group where I encouraged
them to pursue the moderated group with a better set of moderators. I
likely would have voted yes if that had gone to a vote. The current
proposal makes no sense to me, being unmoderated, and I don't
understand what color the sky is in the proponents' world.
> Maybe this is an out of place post, or im misunderstanding
> or or something, so if this is wrong, I apologize in advance
Not at all. This is a great place to discuss the issue.
In article <1096685252.C1t5VLwV5j0MUbXPnNrSnA@teranews>, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> This is one of the reasons rec.ww has never split, there has yet been no
> clear identification of a split hierarchy that would not result in multiple
> posts, dilution of effectiveness, or efficiency of reading
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone know why the turning group ended up
in rec.crafts rather than rec?
Is there a puky duck factor at play?
In article <[email protected]>, Luigi Zanasi
<[email protected]> wrote:
> recall the same from when I started lurking on the wreck. See this
> post by one of the proponents.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=rwiegand-1306962122220
> 001%40news1.i1.net
>
> Luigi
Thanks for digging that out.
On 1 Oct 2004 15:45:53 -0700, [email protected] (a.t.) wrote:
>Hi...
>I've been lurking here for a few months and I see how everything here
>works. However, I have one concern with the new group. If this
>rec.woodworking.all-ages actually happens.. will rec.woodworking
>become rec.woodworking.*?
Not sure what you mean by that
> And if so, won't we be flooded with cross
>posts from people who just want an answer about some basic thing and
>are trying to post to as many groups as possible?
Ayup, very likely. Also likely that somebody with an idea will cross-post
to both groups as well (or worse, multi-post, resulting in duplicate,
redundant messages taking up additional space).
This is one of the reasons rec.ww has never split, there has yet been no
clear identification of a split hierarchy that would not result in multiple
posts, dilution of effectiveness, or efficiency of reading.
> I see that this
>happens all the time in that kind of group (look at rec.antiques for
>example.) Maybe this is an out of place post, or im misunderstanding
>or or something, so if this is wrong, I apologize in advance
>
Seems like you have a pretty good grasp of potential consequences.
>(braces himself for fire)
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:22:10 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <1096685252.C1t5VLwV5j0MUbXPnNrSnA@teranews>, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This is one of the reasons rec.ww has never split, there has yet been no
>> clear identification of a split hierarchy that would not result in multiple
>> posts, dilution of effectiveness, or efficiency of reading
>
>Out of pure curiosity, does anyone know why the turning group ended up
>in rec.crafts rather than rec?
>
IIRC from the discussion leading to r.c.t's creation, rec.ww is kind of
grandfathered into its current position in the hierarchy. At some point,
the name space cabal realized there was a large proliferation of rec.*
groups and started further segregating them by interest, thus the
rec.crafts.* hieararchy. Thus when the turners' group was started, it was
placed in the crafts hierarchy to meet the new approach to classifying
groups. rec.woodworking retained its original position because to change
that would have had severe consequences in numerous places, for example, in
the archives, etc.
>Is there a puky duck factor at play?
Don't think so. Anybody else have better memory retention than me on
this?
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 06:20:42 GMT, Kevin Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <290920042304094460%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, Dave
> Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>> I've submitted my ballot...
>
> Unless the CFV also calls for eliminating rec.woodworking, I'm not too
> worried about it.
You don't have to eliminate a group to negatively change it. I'll be voting
no, mainly because the people proposing it have done _zero_ to explain
what they're up to, what their motivation really is, and so on.
> In any case, I'm very amused by the idea that the proponents hope to
> create a "family safe environment" in an unmoderated NG. "Unmoderated"
>= "anyone can say whatever they wish".
Add "ineffective and unneeded" to my list of concerns, yes. No positive
effect, real potential of confusing people trying to get wooddorking
information, and an inevitable cross-posting "everything goes to both
groups" situation, proponents of unknown/dubious motivation.... I'm
not seeing _any_ upside to this.
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:22:20 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
> If you're using my TrollFilter, or Robert Bonomi's filters, you won't ever see
> it on the Wreck because it's been crossposted to five groups. Our filters
> remove such crossposts.
Explains why I didn't see it also. I killfile anything to 3 or more groups,
for the same reason. Need to go find it.
Thanks,
Dave Hinz
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:08:04 -0500, Joe Wells <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> For me it showed up as a reply to the 3rd RFD post. Mebbe check there.
It's not on my newsserver, but searched groups.google.com for
rec.woodworking.all-ages CFV and followed the instructions there. Worked
fine, got the ack shortly after I sent in my vote.
Dave Hinz
In article <290920042304094460%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, Dave
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> I've submitted my ballot...
Unless the CFV also calls for eliminating rec.woodworking, I'm not too
worried about it.
In my article list, the CFV for rec.woodworking.all-ages appeared just
before your post, so there must be a bit of lag if you hadn't seen it
before posting.
In any case, I'm very amused by the idea that the proponents hope to
create a "family safe environment" in an unmoderated NG. "Unmoderated"
= "anyone can say whatever they wish".
Perhaps they just need to adopt my news reading methods for the wReck:
I "mark read" about 80%+ of the posts, because either they're OT by
subject line, or outside my areas of interest, or there have been more
than 10 replies, which means it's probably devolved into a "meaningless
brown cloud of poot", to quote Frank Zappa.
Kevin
In article <300920040120215950%[email protected]>, Kevin Craig
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In my article list, the CFV for rec.woodworking.all-ages appeared just
> before your post, so there must be a bit of lag if you hadn't seen it
> before posting.
I wonder if my host is filtering...
In article <[email protected]>, Doug
Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you're using my TrollFilter, or Robert Bonomi's filters, you won't ever
> see
> it on the Wreck because it's been crossposted to five groups. Our filters
> remove such crossposts.
I'm not using your filters.
In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't see it either ... no filters, using Giganews.
I'm using supernews, and don't see it (even in my list of killed posts)
but do see it on my cable ISP's feed.
Annoying.
In article <[email protected]>, Joe Wells
<[email protected]> wrote:
> For me it showed up as a reply to the 3rd RFD post. Mebbe check there.
I reset the group (supernews has over 100,000 posts to the wreck still
on their servers, BTW), disabled all my filters and sure enough, the
CFV showed up.
So supernews is off the hook.
djb
In article <[email protected]>,
John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote in news:lmanl0dmkv8fb2o3pv7uoer5mkk1k3n7q8@
>4ax.com:
>
>> can you clarify the meaning of the different possible votes? it looks
>> like the possibilities are:
>>
>>
>>
>> [ YES ] example.yes.vote
>> [ NO ] example.no.vote
>> [ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
>> [ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
>
>The usually accepted meanings are:
>
>[YES] - I approve of this group and intend to read it
>[NO] - I have some technical objection to the existance of the group
>[ABSTAIN] - I have no objection to the group but also won't read it
>[CANCEL] - I have previously voted and now wish to remove that vote
>
>Note that "technical objection" can include such things as "I
>beleive this group will adversely affect other groups" as well as
>"I don't beleive this group will have a viable readership".
>
>Note also that these meanings are slightly different from those
>in Robert Bonomi's post. These are slightly more accurate, altho
>those are close enough for practical purposes.
For some reason, I feel compelled to take (at least minor) issue with most of
the above. <grin>
Notably that a yes vote implies that you *do* intend to read the proposed group.
Over the years I have voted _for_ a number of groups that I had no intention
whatsoever of reading. Where there was a valid functional division being
drawn, and the new group was going to siphon off stuff that I had no interest
in. Creating that new group was going to get the 'irrelevancies' (to me) out
of the group that I _was_ reading -- a 'worthy' reason for creating it. :)
Since 'abstain' votes are, for all practical purposes, totally *ignored* by
the voting system, there is no functional difference between an 'abstain' vote
and _not_voting_.
The 'cancel' description, above, is a bit misleading in that it would seem to
imply that if you wish to change your vote from 'yes' to 'no', or vice-versa,
that you need to 'cancel' the your prior vote, and then submit your new one.
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:04:09 -0600, Dave Balderstone
><dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>>The call for votes (CFV) has been issued for the splinter group
>>"rec.woodworking.all-ages" proposed by Vito Kuhn <[email protected]>
>>and Susan Welchel <[email protected]>
>>
>>Reference message ID is <[email protected]>
>>
>>Read the instructions in the CFV and follow them if you want your
>>ballot counted. Voting closes October 21 at 1 second to midnight UTC.
>>
>>The CFV should appear in the following groups:
>>
>>news.announce.newgroups
>>news.groups
>>free.uk.woodworking
>>rec.crafts.woodturning
>>rec.woodworking
>>
>>but I don't see it here on the wreck yet.
>>
>>I've submitted my ballot...
>>
>>djb
>
>
>
>can you clarify the meaning of the different possible votes? it looks
>like the possibilities are:
>
>
>
> [ YES ] example.yes.vote
> [ NO ] example.no.vote
> [ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
> [ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
>
'YES' you are in favor of the new group being created
'NO' you are opposed to the new group being created
'CANCEL' to void a previously cast vote. (you can change your mind during
the voting period, only your _last_ vote counts. 'Cancel' is
how you withdraw a vote, =without= casting a vote for the opposite
side of the proposition)
'ABSTAIN' no functional purpose. it pretty much says "I'm going on the record
as 'I don't care' about this group."
The appropriate "magic word" must be inserted in the space marked off with the
'[' and ']' characters, in front of the name of each newsgroup on which you
are casting a vote.
If you think the proposed group may have an adverse effects on rec.woodworking
a 'no' vote is in order.
If you thing the proposed group has merit, in and of itself, then a 'yes' vote
is in order.
If you don't have any real feelings either way, then the recommended action is
_do_not_vote_ on the matter.
On 1 Oct 2004 15:45:53 -0700, [email protected] (a.t.)
wrote:
>Hi...
>I've been lurking here for a few months and I see how everything here
>works. However, I have one concern with the new group. If this
>rec.woodworking.all-ages actually happens.. will rec.woodworking
>become rec.woodworking.*? And if so, won't we be flooded with cross
>posts from people who just want an answer about some basic thing and
>are trying to post to as many groups as possible? I see that this
>happens all the time in that kind of group (look at rec.antiques for
>example.) Maybe this is an out of place post, or im misunderstanding
>or or something, so if this is wrong, I apologize in advance
>
>(braces himself for fire)
you are correct. namespace pollution is one of the main objections.
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:22:11 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> scribbled:
>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:22:10 -0600, Dave Balderstone
><dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>>In article <1096685252.C1t5VLwV5j0MUbXPnNrSnA@teranews>, Mark & Juanita
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> This is one of the reasons rec.ww has never split, there has yet been no
>>> clear identification of a split hierarchy that would not result in multiple
>>> posts, dilution of effectiveness, or efficiency of reading
>>
>>Out of pure curiosity, does anyone know why the turning group ended up
>>in rec.crafts rather than rec?
>>
>
>IIRC from the discussion leading to r.c.t's creation, rec.ww is kind of
>grandfathered into its current position in the hierarchy. At some point,
>the name space cabal realized there was a large proliferation of rec.*
>groups and started further segregating them by interest, thus the
>rec.crafts.* hieararchy. Thus when the turners' group was started, it was
>placed in the crafts hierarchy to meet the new approach to classifying
>groups. rec.woodworking retained its original position because to change
>that would have had severe consequences in numerous places, for example, in
>the archives, etc.
>
>>Is there a puky duck factor at play?
>
> Don't think so. Anybody else have better memory retention than me on
>this?
I recall the same from when I started lurking on the wreck. See this
post by one of the proponents.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=rwiegand-1306962122220001%40news1.i1.net
Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
Dave Hinz wrote:
> Explains why I didn't see it also. I killfile anything to 3 or more groups,
> for the same reason. Need to go find it.
I found it and voted.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in
news:300920040726001096%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:
> In article <300920040120215950%[email protected]>, Kevin Craig
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In my article list, the CFV for rec.woodworking.all-ages appeared just
>> before your post, so there must be a bit of lag if you hadn't seen it
>> before posting.
>
> I wonder if my host is filtering...
CFV's are often cross-posted to all the relevant groups. Many
servers filter out all posts posted to more than one or two groups
(in order to eliminate troll posts, which are usually crossposted
to AUK, the nose, the flonk, etc etc).
Anyone interested who doesn't see the CFV should probably look
for it on Google groups.
John
[email protected] wrote in news:lmanl0dmkv8fb2o3pv7uoer5mkk1k3n7q8@
4ax.com:
> can you clarify the meaning of the different possible votes? it looks
> like the possibilities are:
>
>
>
> [ YES ] example.yes.vote
> [ NO ] example.no.vote
> [ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
> [ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
The usually accepted meanings are:
[YES] - I approve of this group and intend to read it
[NO] - I have some technical objection to the existance of the group
[ABSTAIN] - I have no objection to the group but also won't read it
[CANCEL] - I have previously voted and now wish to remove that vote
Note that "technical objection" can include such things as "I
beleive this group will adversely affect other groups" as well as
"I don't beleive this group will have a viable readership".
Note also that these meanings are slightly different from those
in Robert Bonomi's post. These are slightly more accurate, altho
those are close enough for practical purposes.
John
[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>The usually accepted meanings are:
>>
>>[YES] - I approve of this group and intend to read it
>>[NO] - I have some technical objection to the existance of the group
>>[ABSTAIN] - I have no objection to the group but also won't read it
>>[CANCEL] - I have previously voted and now wish to remove that vote
<...>
> Notably that a yes vote implies that you *do* intend to read the
> proposed group.
>
> Over the years I have voted _for_ a number of groups that I had no
> intention whatsoever of reading. Where there was a valid functional
> division being drawn, and the new group was going to siphon off stuff
> that I had no interest in. Creating that new group was going to get
> the 'irrelevancies' (to me) out of the group that I _was_ reading -- a
> 'worthy' reason for creating it. :)
That misses the point of having a vote, however. The reason the vote
is held is so that the newsgroup administrators can determine if
there's enough potential users to justify creating a group. If the
group doesn't have enough users (readers & posters) it will die,
causing extra work for those maintaining newsservers (and probably
also failing to draw off your "irrelevancies" :-)
Which is why one's generally expected to vote yes only if they'll
at least read, if not post, the new group.
Of course, anyone's free to vote any way for any reason :-)
> The 'cancel' description, above, is a bit misleading in that it would
> seem to imply that if you wish to change your vote from 'yes' to 'no',
> or vice-versa, that you need to 'cancel' the your prior vote, and then
> submit your new one.
Yeah - getting it in one line was tricky. I was hoping that using
"remove" and not "replace" would get the point across that you only
need to use cancel if you don't want to have any vote entered.
John
[email protected] (a.t.) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I have one concern with the new group. If this
> rec.woodworking.all-ages actually happens.. will rec.woodworking
> become rec.woodworking.*?
No. The wreck would remain the same, except possibly a few of the whiners
and prudes might not be here.
--
Bill
Hi...
I've been lurking here for a few months and I see how everything here
works. However, I have one concern with the new group. If this
rec.woodworking.all-ages actually happens.. will rec.woodworking
become rec.woodworking.*? And if so, won't we be flooded with cross
posts from people who just want an answer about some basic thing and
are trying to post to as many groups as possible? I see that this
happens all the time in that kind of group (look at rec.antiques for
example.) Maybe this is an out of place post, or im misunderstanding
or or something, so if this is wrong, I apologize in advance
(braces himself for fire)
In article <290920042304094460%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca wrote:
>The CFV should appear in the following groups:
>
>news.announce.newgroups
>news.groups
>free.uk.woodworking
>rec.crafts.woodturning
>rec.woodworking
>
>but I don't see it here on the wreck yet.
>
If you're using my TrollFilter, or Robert Bonomi's filters, you won't ever see
it on the Wreck because it's been crossposted to five groups. Our filters
remove such crossposts.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:04:09 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> can you clarify the meaning of the different possible votes? it looks
> like the possibilities are:
>
>
>
> [ YES ] example.yes.vote
> [ NO ] example.no.vote
> [ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
> [ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
Ok this will sound mean but I believe the first 2 are self explanatory but
the last 2 are added for the benefit of Florida voters. ;~)
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:22:20 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <290920042304094460%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca wrote:
>>The CFV should appear in the following groups:
>>
>>news.announce.newgroups
>>news.groups
>>free.uk.woodworking
>>rec.crafts.woodturning
>>rec.woodworking
>>
>>but I don't see it here on the wreck yet.
>>
>If you're using my TrollFilter, or Robert Bonomi's filters, you won't ever see
>it on the Wreck because it's been crossposted to five groups. Our filters
>remove such crossposts.
I also don't see it, but I suspect that it is getting filtered because
I have Agent configured to skip crossposts. That means that if the
message has been retrieved in one group it will be skipped in any
subsequent groups it appears in. In this case I see it in news.groups,
but, because rec.woodworking is later in the subscribed groups list,
it is skipped here.
Either way I saw it and am casting my "no" vote.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 06:20:42 GMT, Kevin Craig <[email protected]>
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
How limited of you.....
>Perhaps they just need to adopt my news reading methods for the wReck:
>I "mark read" about 80%+ of the posts, because either they're OT by
>subject line, or outside my areas of interest, or there have been more
>than 10 replies, which means it's probably devolved into a "meaningless
>brown cloud of poot", to quote Frank Zappa.
>
>Kevin
*****************************************************
I know I am wrong about just about everything. So I
am not going to listen when I am told I am wrong about
the things I know I am right about.
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:04:09 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>The call for votes (CFV) has been issued for the splinter group
>"rec.woodworking.all-ages" proposed by Vito Kuhn <[email protected]>
>and Susan Welchel <[email protected]>
>
>Reference message ID is <[email protected]>
>
>Read the instructions in the CFV and follow them if you want your
>ballot counted. Voting closes October 21 at 1 second to midnight UTC.
>
>The CFV should appear in the following groups:
>
>news.announce.newgroups
>news.groups
>free.uk.woodworking
>rec.crafts.woodturning
>rec.woodworking
>
>but I don't see it here on the wreck yet.
>
>I've submitted my ballot...
>
>djb
can you clarify the meaning of the different possible votes? it looks
like the possibilities are:
[ YES ] example.yes.vote
[ NO ] example.no.vote
[ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
[ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
thanks....
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:26:10 -0600, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I don't see it either ... no filters, using Giganews.
>
> I'm using supernews, and don't see it (even in my list of killed posts)
> but do see it on my cable ISP's feed.
>
> Annoying.
For me it showed up as a reply to the 3rd RFD post. Mebbe check there.
--
Joe Wells
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:45:53 -0700, a.t. wrote:
> Hi...
> I've been lurking here for a few months
Welcome to the Wonderful World of the WrecK!
> and I see how everything here
> works.
'Splain it to me sometime, willya?
> However, I have one concern with the new group. If this
> rec.woodworking.all-ages actually happens..
IMO, r.w.aa has a very, very (very) small chance of passing.
> will rec.woodworking become
> rec.woodworking.*?
No, the WrecK will be here, same bat-time, same bat-channel.
> And if so, won't we be flooded with cross posts from
> people who just want an answer about some basic thing and are trying to
> post to as many groups as possible?
Pretty likely. So go vote No to r.w.aa if you're concerned about this.
> I see that this happens all the time
> in that kind of group (look at rec.antiques for example.)
Yup, I have that t-shirt too.
> Maybe this is an
> out of place post, or im misunderstanding or or something, so if this is
> wrong, I apologize in advance
Nope, this is the right place to chat about a potential split of r.ww.
> (braces himself for fire)
You *have* been paying attention. I'm impressed. ;^)
--
Joe Wells