In <MPG.3f7f9aa2aab7cb969896c9@news.eternal-september.org> Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> writes:

>This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because
>the moderated newsgroup soc.history.war.world-war-ii is not functioning,
>and may have been abandoned by its moderator. This investigation will
>attempt to verify the reasons for non-function, and may result in the
>removal of the group or the selection and installation of a new
>moderator. In practice, the Big-8 Management Board considers the third
>alternative--changing the status of the group from moderated to
>unmoderated--as likely to cause more harm than good.

>The Big-8 Management Board has been approached by "Bixby"
><bixby@sctb.ch>, who has informed us that the moderation for
>soc.history.war.world-war-ii is not functioning. They have also informed
>us that they used to be a participant in the group, posting at the time
>under their earlier alias of "Comrade Yum Yum". Bixby has volunteered to
>take over moderation duties for the group, if no reason exists for them
>not to do so.

Thanks to the Big-8 Management Board for their thorough research into
the question whether this newsgroup has been abandoned, and in
publishing this Moderator Vacancy Investigation. Thanks also for the
offer from the proposed replacement moderator to take over moderation,
and anticipating many of our likely questions with detailed answers.

Some practical questions:

- What steps will the proposed replacement moderator take to reactivate
activity in a dormant newsgroup, and on a mostly dormant Usenet? For
example, do they intend to contact former participants directly to
invite them back? Are these former participants willing to post a
reply to the MVI in news.groups.proposals stating their support of the
proposed replacement moderator, and their intention to use the
newsgroup if reactivated?

Will the proposed replacement moderator also be publicizing the
restart of the newsgroup in other newsgroups, or even outside of
Usenet (e.g., Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc.)? Will they be actively
seeking out good contributors and contributions, not just those from
Usenet, and encouraging their participation?

- What kind of software and hosting do they intend to use to moderate
the newsgroup? There are multiple alternatives:

https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderated_Newsgroups#Moderation_Software

STUMP is an option, particularly STUMP installed at Panix, and has the
advantage of being actively used and maintained, but isn't the only
one.

I recommend two excellent reference articles about newsgroup moderation
that are available at the following link:

https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderated_Newsgroups#Documents

Pitfalls of Newsgroup Moderation

Netnews Moderators Handbook (1995; copied 2009)

Does anyone have any questions or concerns after reading these articles?

I look forward to any replies.

--
Paul W. Schleck
pschleck@panix.com

Paul W. Schleck wrote:
....
> - What steps will the proposed replacement moderator take to reactivate
> activity in a dormant newsgroup, and on a mostly dormant Usenet?
....
> - What kind of software and hosting do they intend to use to moderate
> the newsgroup?
....
> I look forward to any replies.

You are asking the right questions, and the lack of replies after a few
days is telling.

Logic suggests that in today's "mostly dormant Usenet", as you so
succinctly put it, the probability of reviving a moderated newsgroup
that has been dead for years is tiny unless there is a reason for that
specific group to exist. There seems to be no such reason in the case
of a discussion about WW2. Even the most persuasive proponent could not
hope to lure people away from their current haunts into an unknown
discussion forum that requires them to climb the learning curve of
downloading a news reader (or suffer with the Google interface) and then
understand the nuances of Usenet. Even previous active posters are
unlikely to see any advantage to participating in what for all intents
and purposes is a new discussion facility.

Someone comes along who yearns for the good 'ole days when there was a
wonderful group of people discussing a topic on Usenet, and wants to
recreate that experience. Problem is, it just is not going to happen.
Replacing the moderator will not magically recreate the experience of
participating in a fulfilling discussion. Replacing the moderator is the
easy part (and even that is non-trivial); populating the newsgroup with
active participants is the hard part. Unless there is an existing
population of current Usenet users who will use the group - and there is
no evidence of that for this proposal - this is just a fine way to waste
time and create frustration for the folks who waste it and then realize
that they have accomplished nothing.

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 09:17:23 CST, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
> In <MPG.3f7f9aa2aab7cb969896c9@news.eternal-september.org> Usenet Big-8
> Management Board <board@big-8.org> writes:

> Some practical questions:
>
> - What steps will the proposed replacement moderator take to reactivate
> activity in a dormant newsgroup, and on a mostly dormant Usenet? For
> example, do they intend to contact former participants directly to
> invite them back?

This is a good question.

I could be wrong, but directly contacting feels quite forward.

Do you, or others, have thoughts with regard to this matter?

> Will the proposed replacement moderator also be publicizing the
> restart of the newsgroup in other newsgroups, or even outside of
> Usenet (e.g., Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc.)?

Yes. Posting something in a relevant public forum seems an entirely
appropriate use of a public forum.

For some of this I likely will require assisstance from initial group
members, as I am a private individual, no longer keeping a mobile phone
number, but some of these systems, such as Facebook, have I believe for a
long time mandated a mobile phone number to sign up (all part of uniquely
identifying individuals for information collation).

> Will they be
> actively seeking out good contributors and contributions, not just
> those from Usenet, and encouraging their participation?

I may be wrong, but I think it is appropriate to ensure the existence of
the group is generally known, but actively encouraging membership is
forward; people should join of their independent wish, not from
encouragement.

> - What kind of software and hosting do they intend to use to moderate
> the newsgroup? There are multiple alternatives:
>
> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderated_Newsgroups#Moderation_Software
>
> STUMP is an option, particularly STUMP installed at Panix, and has
> the advantage of being actively used and maintained, but isn't the
> only one.

I've looked through the available systems.

STUMP seems to be the only viable candidate, short of writing my own.

I am inclined to write my own, as the underying work is simple : provide
an email address, download those emails, store in database, review them
(web-based interface), send those which are approved via NNTP with the
necessary extra header to the Usenet provider.

It will be easier and quicker to implement this than to install and
configure a third-party system.

> I recommend two excellent reference articles about newsgroup moderation
> that are available at the following link:
>
> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderated_Newsgroups#Documents
>
> Pitfalls of Newsgroup Moderation

An excellent document.

> Netnews Moderators Handbook (1995; copied 2009)

Thankyou. An excellent reference for implementing moderation software.

In <ug39u8$13bkh$1@dont-email.me> Bixby <bixby@sctb.ch> writes:

>On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 09:17:23 CST, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
>> In <MPG.3f7f9aa2aab7cb969896c9@news.eternal-september.org> Usenet Big-8
>> Management Board <board@big-8.org> writes:

>> Some practical questions:
>>
>> - What steps will the proposed replacement moderator take to reactivate
>> activity in a dormant newsgroup, and on a mostly dormant Usenet? For
>> example, do they intend to contact former participants directly to
>> invite them back?

>This is a good question.

>I could be wrong, but directly contacting feels quite forward.

>Do you, or others, have thoughts with regard to this matter?

American on-line culture may be different, and such users are likely to
be the majority of your audience. More proactive approaches may be
necessary in the 2023 near-dormant Usenet, and can be done in ways that
are polite, and could be well-received. Thirty years ago, one could sit
in a computer terminal room at a University, and have a classmate bump
their elbow and say, "Hey, check this out." Or even, as one person
famously claimed, they accidentally typed "rn" instead of the Unix "rm"
command, and stumbled on an entire world of interesting information.
Those days have now passed.

Maybe find a half-dozen individuals where you had a connection in the
newsgroup, possibly from discussion in a given thread. Maybe also reply
to them with that thread's subject, introduce yourself, let them know
you interacted with them in the past, that you are reviving the
newsgroup, and would welcome their participation. Ask them to tell
other friends from the newsgroup that they may know.

>> Will the proposed replacement moderator also be publicizing the
>> restart of the newsgroup in other newsgroups, or even outside of
>> Usenet (e.g., Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc.)?

>Yes. Posting something in a relevant public forum seems an entirely
>appropriate use of a public forum.

>For some of this I likely will require assisstance from initial group
>members, as I am a private individual, no longer keeping a mobile phone
>number, but some of these systems, such as Facebook, have I believe for a
>long time mandated a mobile phone number to sign up (all part of uniquely
>identifying individuals for information collation).

>> Will they be
>> actively seeking out good contributors and contributions, not just
>> those from Usenet, and encouraging their participation?

>I may be wrong, but I think it is appropriate to ensure the existence of
>the group is generally known, but actively encouraging membership is
>forward; people should join of their independent wish, not from
>encouragement.

You don't have to high-pressure sell them, just let them know about the
newsgroup's existence and that they can be a valuable part of it. Some
degree of "selling" and "marketing" will be required to make this effort
successful.

>> - What kind of software and hosting do they intend to use to moderate
>> the newsgroup? There are multiple alternatives:
>>
>> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderated_Newsgroups#Moderation_Software
>>
>> STUMP is an option, particularly STUMP installed at Panix, and has
>> the advantage of being actively used and maintained, but isn't the
>> only one.

>I've looked through the available systems.

>STUMP seems to be the only viable candidate, short of writing my own.

>I am inclined to write my own, as the underying work is simple : provide
>an email address, download those emails, store in database, review them
>(web-based interface), send those which are approved via NNTP with the
>necessary extra header to the Usenet provider.

>It will be easier and quicker to implement this than to install and
>configure a third-party system.

You know your own talent and temperament. I have known
super-programmers who could whip out a secure, collaborative, web-based
application in a weekend. I have also known more mortal programmers who
thought that a given application domain was simple, but found that there
was a lot more nuance that distracted them chasing down bugs and
feature-creep for years. I would recommend that you weigh whether or
not you want to spend most of your time just maintaining tools, or in
the more important public tasks of leading a moderation team, making
editorial decisions, and making the newsgroup a quality information
resource that others would want to read.

You may also find it easier to recruit moderators for a team, including
temporary back-up or even replacement moderators, if you were using a
standard environment in which they may already be experienced. These
experienced users are also submitting bug reports to a central
maintenance team that can be shared with all users. A large user-base
can also be a resource for answering questions. With custom software,
you are mostly on your own.

I would find using a third-party system to be easier and faster than
trying to write something from scratch. I am a modest programmer, but
at least have learned from experience that some problem domains are not
so simple as first thought. For example, here are some sample
requirements for newsgroup moderation software that newsgroups that I
help moderate wound up implementing:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/175cfsk/sample_requirements_for_usenet_newsgroup/

Do you need all of these features? Maybe you do, and sometimes on very
short notice to protect the newsgroup or make it less of a headache to
manage, and if you do find out that you need them, they are already
supported in a system like STUMP at Panix.

Good luck with your decisions and plans as a possible replacement
moderator for the dormant newsgroup.

--
Paul W. Schleck
pschleck@panix.com