Hi & best wishes to all the true rec.ponders reading this,

Here's what's been happening:

1. I met in person with a member of the Big-8 Board this
afternoon. That person had a lot of very helpful info and suggestions
to pass on.. I'll be sharing much of this with the potential
co-moderators.

2. We now have 6 potential co-moderators, and possibly a
seventh.
I will __NOT___ need to be a co-moderator. In fact, once
the new group gets going, I plan to step back and just enjoy it, and
all the little fishies in my own pond.

3. I will be contacting the potential co-moderators in the next
day or so. There is a lot that needs to be done in the upcoming 7-14
days.

4. I expect that the RFD will be sent to Big-8 in about 7-14
days. Those that wish to respond to it, either pro or con, will need
to make sure their news provider starts to carry the group, and then
they will need to subscribe to it.
By the way, when the RFD is published, then my true name and
email address will be included with it. And everyone won't have to
wonder any more. No more substitute names. Just the real thing.
By the way, my own email address has plenty of filters on it.
Probably more than 95% of the people here.

5. It should be pretty clear by now that the moderation of
messages in the new group must be strictly content-based, and not
personality based. This should be very acceptable to all true
rec.ponders. Its the subject matter of a post that we should care
about, not who sent it. And my guess is that that is also what the
Big-8 will expect and perhaps even insist upon.

6. The Big-8 has to be shown that there is a very real and
desired wish by MANY rec.ponders for the creation of a moderated
newsgroup. "Just a few" supporters won't cut it. To be viable
long-term, any group must have a fairly large support base. Otherwise
it probably won't last very long.

To that end, I am urging, in the strongest possible way, that
all true rec.ponders contact as many former rec.ponders as they can.
Convince them that a new day is dawning, and that we must have their
visible support. That means that if they want rec.ponds.moderated
to be created, we will need them to post their support and approval to
news.groups.proposals. (after the first RFD is published.) If they
sit back and hope that others do the visible supporting, then we may
not get enough posts to show that we can be a viable, long-term
group.
(My own thinking is that we need not just 20 or 30, but 70-100
or more to show Big-8 that we really need, and want, and support a new
rec.ponds.moderated.)
This, I think, is where our greatest efforts need to be put right
now. By the way, I am sure that the Big-8 will not be looking at the
number of posts, but at the number of bonifide different people that
will be posting. Even if you or I post 20 times each, the "real"
count is only 2, not 40.


Finally: to all potential moderators. I've had a long and busy
day, (and week) and I'm very tired. I'll be in touch with you in the
next day or so.

George (some of you know who I really am)
(everyone else will know the day the first RFD
is published. And __then__ the discussions pro/con will start, in
news.groups.proposals)


PS: I continue to work on the details surrounding the mechanics of
robo-moderation, where the robot is located, and what mechanisms will
be put in place to see the whole process through. The moderators will
be gven all the details, and will make the final decisions, not me.
Also, many of these details will be in the first RFD, to be viewed and
discussed (pro/con/changes/additions/etc) by all the persons who go to
news.groups.proposals. Your opinions and ideas/suggestions WILL
matter and be taken into consideration by the moderators.
The more true rec.ponders that show up, the more the final RFD
will reflect the consensus of the __ entire__ group. (The first
RFD is just the starting point.)

george

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:44:50 -0500, wrote:

[...]
To that end, I am urging, in the strongest possible way, that
all true rec.ponders contact as many former rec.ponders as they can.
Convince them that a new day is dawning, and that we must have their
visible support. That means that if they want rec.ponds.moderated
to be created, we will need them to post their support and approval to
news.groups.proposals. (after the first RFD is published.) If they
sit back and hope that others do the visible supporting, then we may
not get enough posts to show that we can be a viable, long-term
group.
[...]

I have noticed that some ponders seem reluctant to reveal their
names/email. This may make some of you reluctant to post your support.
There have been several methods of polling used in RFDs in the past. I'm
looking into whether one is available that will allow people to express
their support while retaining anonymity. Are there suggestions about other
ways to handle this, if anonymous polling is not available?

--
Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:44:50 -0500, wrote:

[...]
To that end, I am urging, in the strongest possible way, that
all true rec.ponders contact as many former rec.ponders as they can.
Convince them that a new day is dawning, and that we must have their
visible support. That means that if they want rec.ponds.moderated
to be created, we will need them to post their support and approval to
news.groups.proposals. (after the first RFD is published.) If they
sit back and hope that others do the visible supporting, then we may
not get enough posts to show that we can be a viable, long-term
group.
[...]

I have noticed that some ponders seem reluctant to reveal their
names/email. This may make some of you reluctant to post your support.
There have been several methods of polling used in RFDs in the past. I'm
looking into whether one is available that will allow people to express
their support while retaining anonymity. Are there suggestions about
other
ways to handle this, if anonymous polling is not available?
===================================
Even if they did reveal their real e-mail addresses what's to say they don't
have more than one e-mail account? One person could then vote many, many
times with those free, temporary and other forms of disposable accounts.
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:44:50 -0500, wrote:

[...]
To that end, I am urging, in the strongest possible way, that
all true rec.ponders contact as many former rec.ponders as they can.
Convince them that a new day is dawning, and that we must have their
visible support. That means that if they want rec.ponds.moderated
to be created, we will need them to post their support and approval to
news.groups.proposals. (after the first RFD is published.) If they
sit back and hope that others do the visible supporting, then we may
not get enough posts to show that we can be a viable, long-term
group.
[...]

I have noticed that some ponders seem reluctant to reveal their
names/email. This may make some of you reluctant to post your support.
There have been several methods of polling used in RFDs in the past. I'm
looking into whether one is available that will allow people to express
their support while retaining anonymity. Are there suggestions about
other ways to handle this, if anonymous polling is not available?

My e-mail address is only thinly veiled. Just enough that anyone who wants
to e-mail me has to change it. When I am sent unsolicited, offensive and
abusive e-mail, I report it to the senders ISP and news browser.

If I were sending to a moderator in Big-8, with the knowledge that my
precise e-mail address would not be posted, I would eat my own SPAM to do
so.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

wrote in message
...
My e-mail address is only thinly veiled. Just enough that anyone who wants
to e-mail me has to change it. When I am sent unsolicited, offensive and
abusive e-mail, I report it to the senders ISP and news browser.

If I were sending to a moderator in Big-8, with the knowledge that my
precise e-mail address would not be posted, I would eat my own SPAM to do
so.
============================
Some of us have good reason to hide our e-mail addresses. Mine was used to
impersonate me on sex groups I never heard of. I only give mine to people I
trust and I've learned to trust very few people I meet on Usenet. Those who
hide such information often have good reasons for doing so.
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

On 01 Dec 2006 03:07:50 GMT, wrote:

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:

[...]
I have noticed that some ponders seem reluctant to reveal their
names/email. This may make some of you reluctant to post your support.
There have been several methods of polling used in RFDs in the past. I'm
looking into whether one is available that will allow people to express
their support while retaining anonymity. Are there suggestions about
other ways to handle this, if anonymous polling is not available?

My e-mail address is only thinly veiled. Just enough that anyone who wants
to e-mail me has to change it. When I am sent unsolicited, offensive and
abusive e-mail, I report it to the senders ISP and news browser.

If I were sending to a moderator in Big-8, with the knowledge that my
precise e-mail address would not be posted, I would eat my own SPAM to do
so.

Great.

An update since my earlier post: There is a polling system in which posters
names/email are not published. There seem to be some anti-fraud features
in it too, but I don't know the details. Once the RFD is up, the
information on how to respond to the poll will go out and anyone with
concerns about how the poll works can ask them then.

It is not a simple yes/no system and you will be able to use it for making
comments as well. So people who want to show support for a moderated group
without having their email appear or even without posting to
news.groups.proposals will be able to do so.

--
Jayne