RFD: reorganization of the misc.education.home-school.* hier

Jim Riley · Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 5

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:16:35 CST, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:44:40 CST, "jayne.kulikauskas@gmail.com" wrote in
>:
>
>> ... I am not envisioning .resources as a group in which people would ask
>>questions.
>
>I think that may be a mistake.
>
>People tend to ask questions when they find a newsgroup.

>Other people tend to answer from different points of view,
>which sparks a desire to discuss the issues raised.
>
>I think you should frame the charter in such a way that
>discussion of resources as well as announcements about
>them are allowed.

It would be a moderated group. Followup-To of the postings could be
set to another group. If people do post questions to the group, the
moderator could "reject" their submissions and direct them to a
different group.

>Or call the group *.announce instead. I think there
>is precedent for that kind of group. That name might
>help to make it clearer that only announcements will
>be posted in the group.

Currently, most of the content of the misc.education.home-school.misc
newsgroup consists of messages that are labelled "resources", with
occassional follow-up discussion of the same. These are generally web
sites that have interesting or useful material, that the poster (95%+
by Stephen Saus) has found.

I think that I suggested the name ".resources" because that is what
Stephen Saus has tagged his with. I do not know whether he would be
interested in posting them to a dedicated group or not.

I don't think they would really be considered announcements,
especially since many might be by 3rd parties. Calling it ".announce"
might tend to skew submissions towards more 1st-party advertising.

Another possible name would be ".info".
--
Jim Riley

Archived from group: news>groups>proposals

jayne.kulikauskas · Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 10

On Oct 23, 2:52 pm, "Michael S. Morris"
wrote:

[...]
> Practically, I think that deleting m.e.h-s.c would
> have the effect of shuffling the remaining regulars
> over to m.e.h-s.m, which, in itself, wouldn't be so
> bad a thing, except that it almost certainly would
> induce the troll to move there with us.

I'm having trouble understanding why this bothers you. It seems to me
that people can ignore Mark T. just as easily at .misc
as .christian. It he does indeed migrate with the other .christian
posters, the situation won't be any worse than it is now.

Jayne

Scott Bryce · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 478

jayne.kulikauskas@gmail.com wrote:
> It seems to me
> that people can ignore Mark T. just as easily at .misc
> as .christian. It he does indeed migrate with the other .christian
> posters, the situation won't be any worse than it is now.

But you are missing one very important point.

Mark T IS THE REASON that most of the regulars at .christian are no
longer there.

mehsc.org was created specifically to give the MEH-SC regulars a place
to interact without Mark T interfering.

I agree that Mark T can be ignored, though it takes a little effort. I
counted 21 nyms of his that I have killfiled. But the bulk of MEH-SC
regulars chose to move to a moderated web based forum rather than try to
keep up with all of his nyms. Also the number of posts responding to him
or discussing him added to the noise.

Steven Saus does not have to put up with Mark T right now. We won't be
doing him any favors if we hand Mark off to him.

Dan Goodman · Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 1

jayne.kulikauskas@gmail.com wrote:

> Most Usenet groups in my experience are
> gradually losing members and not replacing them, so I don't think it
> is caused by anything especially wrong with the homeschooling groups.

Possibly related -- I've looked in on alt.config a couple of times
recently, and see no (zero, nil) posts related to starting alt.
newsgroups.

--
Dan Goodman
"You, each of you, have some special wild cards. Play with them.
Find out what makes you different and better. Because it is there,
if only you can find it." Vernor Vinge, _Rainbows End_
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://dangoodman.livejournal.com
mirror: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood

Martin X. Moleski, SJ · Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 4

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:11:42 CST, Jim Riley wrote in :

>On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:16:35 CST, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote:

>>I think you should frame the charter in such a way that
>>discussion of resources as well as announcements about
>>them are allowed.

>It would be a moderated group. Followup-To of the postings could be
>set to another group. If people do post questions to the group, the
>moderator could "reject" their submissions and direct them to a
>different group.

If I understand the proposal, the groups to which the posts would
point are non-Usenet forums. We do not have Followup-To headers
for that kind of discussion group.

>I don't think they would really be considered announcements,
>especially since many might be by 3rd parties. Calling it ".announce"
>might tend to skew submissions towards more 1st-party advertising.

>Another possible name would be ".info".

That's a good suffix.

I don't like the idea of a group whose sole purpose is to
advertise non-Usenet discussion groups.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) -- http://www.big-8.org
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.

Brandon Staggs · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 18

"Scott Bryce" wrote on Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:23:38 CST:

> The irony is that the person who set up the forum was the most vocal in
> his opposition to there being a web-based forum. He prefers to use a
> newsreader for discussions.
>
> He set up mehsc.org as a favor for those who wanted an alternative to a
> newsgroup dominated by Mark T.

And I still prefer newsgroups to forums. Smile

The problem is, few people have the knowledge to use newsgroups or
know what they are getting into when they do. Seems like most new
posters are going through Google Groups and assume it's just another
forum.

I think all the flapping in the wind won't do anything to solve ng
attrition. It's old tech and people have moved on. Except for the
binary punks.

But I still like newsgroups better than forums. Smile

--
Brandon Staggs

.....Wonder where all the Christian Homeschoolers are? Visit
http://www.meh-sc.org to find out!
..

jayne.kulikauskas · Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 10

On Oct 23, 8:04 pm, Scott Bryce wrote:
> jayne.kulikaus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It seems to me
> > that people can ignore Mark T. just as easily at .misc
> > as .christian. It he does indeed migrate with the other .christian
> > posters, the situation won't be any worse than it is now.
>
> But you are missing one very important point.
>
> Mark T IS THE REASON that most of the regulars at .christian are no
> longer there.

There isn't any discussion on .misc for Mark to disrupt. As I
understand Steven's comments, he will just ignore Mark T if he starts
posting to .misc.

> mehsc.org was created specifically to give the MEH-SC regulars a place
> to interact without Mark T interfering.

And that will remain the same whatever happens to the unmoderated
groups.

> I agree that Mark T can be ignored, though it takes a little effort. I
> counted 21 nyms of his that I have killfiled. But the bulk of MEH-SC
> regulars chose to move to a moderated web based forum rather than try to
> keep up with all of his nyms. Also the number of posts responding to him
> or discussing him added to the noise.
>
> Steven Saus does not have to put up with Mark T right now. We won't be
> doing him any favors if we hand Mark off to him.

When I asked him about it in pre-RFD discussion, he really didn't seem
to care. He apparently does not have strong enough feelings on the
subject to post to this RFD discussion. I don't see consideration for
Steven Saus as being a good reason not to consolidate.

Jayne

Marcel Beaudoin · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 1

"jayne.kulikauskas@gmail.com" wrote @q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com in
news.groups.proposals:

> On Oct 23, 2:52 pm, "Michael S. Morris"
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Practically, I think that deleting m.e.h-s.c would
>> have the effect of shuffling the remaining regulars
>> over to m.e.h-s.m, which, in itself, wouldn't be so
>> bad a thing, except that it almost certainly would
>> induce the troll to move there with us.
>
> I'm having trouble understanding why this bothers you. It seems to me
> that people can ignore Mark T. just as easily at .misc
> as .christian. It he does indeed migrate with the other .christian
> posters, the situation won't be any worse than it is now.

If it is very possible to ignore Mark T., then the people in the groups
should be doing that first before going through the trouble of an RFD for a
new group and the merging of two other groups.

--
Marcel

Jim Riley · Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 5

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:25:00 CST, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:11:42 CST, Jim Riley wrote in :
>
>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:16:35 CST, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
>> wrote:
>
>>>I think you should frame the charter in such a way that
>>>discussion of resources as well as announcements about
>>>them are allowed.
>
>>It would be a moderated group. Followup-To of the postings could be
>>set to another group. If people do post questions to the group, the
>>moderator could "reject" their submissions and direct them to a
>>different group.
>
>If I understand the proposal, the groups to which the posts would
>point are non-Usenet forums. We do not have Followup-To headers
>for that kind of discussion group.

This is what the RFD says:

Suitable topics include descriptions/reviews of
homeschoolers' blogs, homeschooling discussion fora and information
sites. It also welcomes information about homeschooling books and
curricula and announcements of upcoming conferences.

misc.education.home-school.misc would continue to exist as a
discussion group about home schooling. There are all kinds of web
sites that can be used in conjunction with homeschooling (or education
in an institutional setting, as well). Or think about this. Are
there any Usenet groups that are suitable for home-schooled children
to participate in? Is it possible that there are some that are not on
Usenet?

The Followup-To header would not be to move discussion into the
non-Usenet forum, but to the Usenet group about home schooling.
Imagine the resource posting is about a particular curricula. Article
might include a URL or perhaps a phone number and mailing address. But
people in the discussion group could discuss their experiences in the
mehs.misc.

>>I don't think they would really be considered announcements,
>>especially since many might be by 3rd parties. Calling it ".announce"
>>might tend to skew submissions towards more 1st-party advertising.
>
>>Another possible name would be ".info".
>
>That's a good suffix.
>
>I don't like the idea of a group whose sole purpose is to
>advertise non-Usenet discussion groups.

I did not understand that to be its sole purpose, or even its most
significant purpose, and quite possibly its least important purpose.

Groups such as news.lists were originally created to contain lists of
mailing lists. It is petty snobbery to treat mailing lists as
different from web forums simply because the format of Netnews
articles is based on that used for e-mail.
--
Jim Riley

Michael S. Morris · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 780

Wednesday, the 24th of October, 2007

Scott Bryce:
Steven Saus does not have to put up with Mark T right now. We won't be
doing him any favors if we hand Mark off to him.
Jayne:
When I asked him about it in pre-RFD discussion, he really didn't seem
to care. He apparently does not have strong enough feelings on the
subject to post to this RFD discussion. I don't see consideration for
Steven Saus as being a good reason not to consolidate.

Huh?

I read him as being quite angry that you had already infected
m.e.h-s.m with a discussion thread that carried the troll. And
he said he wouldn't have time to *fight* to preserve the
group (implying he certainly didn't want "Christians" and their
troll-baggage returning to m.e.h-s.m, but refused to engage in
all the news.groups.proposals folderol in order to fight it),
but would likely retreat to posting to his blog or webforum.
I.e., the result (of folding m.e.h-s.c into m.e.h-s.m) would
likely be to induce Steve to leave.

And, I'm flabbergasted that you would somehow unweigh
Steve of personally fail to take him under consideration
for failing to post to this RFD discussion. This
discussion is cross-posted to two groups, news.groups.proposals
and m.e.h-s.c. I don't see that it is cross-posted to
m.e.h-s.m at all. So, from Steve's perspective, he saw only
the pre-discussion and the RFD, which asked him to go
over and subscribe to news.groups.proposals. If I were
in his shoes, I wouldn't have gone off to news.groups.
proposals either. And, as it now stands, and as I have now
seen how news.groups.proposals moderation works, I'm
going to have nothing to do with it in the future either.
I've expressed my opinion once on the subject and that
ought to be enough.

It seems to me the moral burden is on you, Jayne, and
anyone wishing to alter the newsgroups or putting themselves
in the position of judging whether to alter the newsgroups
to take Steve into and under a great deal of consideration.
What you are proposing is almost certainly highly inimical
to Steve, and to Steve's audience, which audience *has* piped
up in Steve's favor when Steve has asked whether people want
him to keep on posting the links.

Mike Morris
(msmorris@netdirect.net)

Jon Houts · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 260

On Oct 23, 8:34 am, Jim Riley wrote:
> [xpost added]
>
> To anyone reading this in misc.education.home-school.christian
>
> Please respond to this message if you are interested in having the
> group continue.

I'd like the group to continue.

but,but...
Jon

Martin X. Moleski, SJ · Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 4

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:52:05 CST, Jim Riley wrote in :

>>If I understand the proposal, the groups to which the posts would
>>point are non-Usenet forums. We do not have Followup-To headers
>>for that kind of discussion group.

>This is what the RFD says:

> Suitable topics include descriptions/reviews of
> homeschoolers' blogs, homeschooling discussion fora and information
> sites. It also welcomes information about homeschooling books and
> curricula and announcements of upcoming conferences.

In other words, the GROUPS to which the posts would point
are all off Usenet: blogs, fora, sites.

> ... The Followup-To header would not be to move discussion into the
>non-Usenet forum, but to the Usenet group about home schooling.

The idea of posting a question to one group and receiving
a reply in another was tried in rec.aviation.piloting.
I don't think it worked out.

That's why I recommend letting the newsgroup be a discussion
newsgroup. Answer questions where they are asked.

>>>Another possible name would be ".info".

>>That's a good suffix.

>>I don't like the idea of a group whose sole purpose is to
>>advertise non-Usenet discussion groups.

>I did not understand that to be its sole purpose, or even its most
>significant purpose, and quite possibly its least important purpose.

Jayne has said she doesn't want to compete with the
established web fora. I don't think they need an
information newsgroup pointing to them. I do think
it would be good for those so inclined to have a place
where they can discuss resources on Usenet.

>Groups such as news.lists were originally created to contain lists of
>mailing lists. It is petty snobbery to treat mailing lists as
>different from web forums simply because the format of Netnews
>articles is based on that used for e-mail.

Mailing lists are not what is drawing traffic away
from Usenet nowadays. Jayne didn't mention mailing
lists in her RFD. I don't think it is snobbery to
recommend that a newsgroup be opened up for discussion
of resources as well as posting information about them.

YMMV.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) -- http://www.big-8.org
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.

jayne.kulikauskas · Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 10

On Oct 23, 11:25 pm, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote:

[...]
> I don't like the idea of a group whose sole purpose is to
> advertise non-Usenet discussion groups.

That is not its sole purpose. It will also contain book and
curriculum reviews, conference announcements and information sites. It
will also expose non-Usenet users to Usenet and give them a chance to
learn something about it and post to a Usenet discussion group if they
wish.

Jayne

jayne.kulikauskas · Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 10

[n.g.p added]
On Oct 24, 5:51 am, "Snapper" wrote:
> "Michael S. Morris" wrote
>
> > OK. I am interested in having the group continue.
>
> I second that. Of course, technically I'm not a "Christian Homeschooler" so
> some may say that I don't get a vote.

David, you need to post this to news.groups.proposals so the Board can
see your opinion. It isn't a matter of having a vote. They need to
know how many people are using the group and want to continue using
the group.

If you have any comments to make about the RFD, please post them to
news.groups.proposals or include it in the cross-posts.

Jayne

jayne.kulikauskas · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 17

On Oct 24, 10:20 am, "Michael S. Morris"
wrote:
> Wednesday, the 24th of October, 2007

[...]
> I look over what I had written, and I am at a loss for understanding
> why Jayne's paragraph was permissible, but my response was
> impermissible. Maybe the word "abortion" was a red flag and
> this moderator acts so as to suppress red flags. I don't know.
> What I do know is that Jayne implied I was either being dishonest or
> inconsistent, i.e. she wrote a fairly personally directed attack,
> and that attack (and not any larger point) was the sole content of
> her post, and her post *was* accepted by this moderator, was not
> blocked for being off-topic.

I cannot understand why your post was rejected and I do not think it,
or the other you post here, should have been. The implications you
saw in my post were not intended. Just take it at face value. I do
not understand your position and need clarification. I am sorry it
seemed like an attack to you.

[...]
> I emphatically disagree with Jayne on this. I am approximately
> atheist, as I wrote in response to Jim Riley's call for comments.
> But I certainly would not consider myself "hostile to Christianity",
> and in fact, I believe it was Jayne herself, who, once upon a time
> invited me to switch over from m.e.h-s.m as my primary newsgroup
> to m.e.h-s.c, and knowing that I was not Christian. So, assuming
> Jayne does not mean me, who are the ones "hostile to Christianity"?

I certainly do not think you are hostile to Christianity. The comment
was a reference to Mark. (In spite of his claims to be a Christain, I
think he is hostile to most forms of Christianity.) I should not have
phrased it in a way that might be misunderstood to refer to you. I
apologize.

> I can't think of any system of "weighting" people's votes
> here that would be fair or reasonable. People's actually
> being homeschoolers, or Christians, seem to me to be
> fairly irrelevant.

There is no system. There are no votes. The Board wants to know how
many people use the group. This is a standard procedure when
considering the removal of a group. My comments about "weight"
referred to me personally. Some people's opinions carry more weight
with me than others. For example, if the only people who were in
favour of keeping the group were Mark and tj, I would not withdraw my
proposal. If the only people in favour of keeping the group were,
let's say, Scott and Brandon I probably would withdraw my proposal.
It is not that I have more votes. I have no votes. As the person who
submitted the proposal, I can make decisions about what to do with my
proposal. The Board makes the decision about whether to accept my
proposal.

It is relevant to me whether people posting here are Christian
homeschoolers. I think that the majority of people posting to a group
with "Christian homeschooling" in the name should consider themselves
Christian homeschoolers. I think that is what people expect from a
group with such a name and to do otherwise borders on false
advertising. It has nothing to do with my feelings about atheists.
Some of my best friends are atheists.

Jayne