Is it time that we sought a volunteer who would take formal
responsibility for this problem and the day to day running of the ULM
"system" and interfaces.
I don't think that {R} does anything now with the system (and I'm not
blaming him for the problems) - but I feel that there is an urgent
need to have a sysadmin who could own the problem and try and get to
the bottom of it.

Is this feasible? 
Would it be worth approaching Peter Gradwell to seek his view if he
could help?

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:27:24 +0100, judith  wrote:

>Is it time that we sought a volunteer who would take formal
>responsibility for this problem and the day to day running of the ULM
>"system" and interfaces.

I'd wholeheartedly support the idea of a third party investigating
from a fresh viewpoint. The problems have gone on for too long. Time
to try something else.

Daytona
(Who can post successfully since my ISP designated ulm as moderated)

"Daytona"  wrote in message 
news:4v0n93lar4n6gqdq0imoh2lk629ss6nmvk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:27:24 +0100, judith  wrote:
>
>>Is it time that we sought a volunteer who would take formal
>>responsibility for this problem and the day to day running of the ULM
>>"system" and interfaces.
>
> I'd wholeheartedly support the idea of a third party investigating
> from a fresh viewpoint. The problems have gone on for too long. Time
> to try something else.
>
> Daytona
> (Who can post successfully since my ISP designated ulm as moderated)

I don't think any of the moderators would object either, or have any reason 
to take offence at such an investigation. However, they do not have the 
ability to facilitate access to the system.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:43:29 +0100, The Todal put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>
>"Daytona"  wrote in message 
>news:4v0n93lar4n6gqdq0imoh2lk629ss6nmvk@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:27:24 +0100, judith  wrote:
>>
>>>Is it time that we sought a volunteer who would take formal
>>>responsibility for this problem and the day to day running of the ULM
>>>"system" and interfaces.
>>
>> I'd wholeheartedly support the idea of a third party investigating
>> from a fresh viewpoint. The problems have gone on for too long. Time
>> to try something else.
>>
>> Daytona
>> (Who can post successfully since my ISP designated ulm as moderated)
>
>I don't think any of the moderators would object either, or have any reason 
>to take offence at such an investigation. However, they do not have the 
>ability to facilitate access to the system. 

They have the right to request access from the company hosting the
moderation system. If permission is not given, they have the right to
move to another provider.

Mark
-- 
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"I don't care if Monday's blue"

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:43:29 +0100, The Todal put finger to keyboard

>> I don't think any of the moderators would object either, or have any
>> reason to take offence at such an investigation. However, they do
>> not have the ability to facilitate access to the system.
>
> They have the right to request access from the company hosting the
> moderation system. If permission is not given, they have the right to
> move to another provider.

I'm sure you're right Mark, but the present moderating team includes no-one 
with the technical ability to set up an alternative system at that new 
provider.

I think we need to co-opt a sys-op, but this would have be a person of 
considerable reputation and integrity, so that all could be assured that 
their power would not be abused.    Assuming such a person stepped forward, 
we would then have to be guided by their advice upon the best choice of 
software, hosting etc.

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:43:29  
uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 

>
>"Daytona"  wrote in message
>news:4v0n93lar4n6gqdq0imoh2lk629ss6nmvk@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:27:24 +0100, judith  wrote:
>>
>>>Is it time that we sought a volunteer who would take formal
>>>responsibility for this problem and the day to day running of the ULM
>>>"system" and interfaces.
>>
>> I'd wholeheartedly support the idea of a third party investigating
>> from a fresh viewpoint. The problems have gone on for too long. Time
>> to try something else.
>>
>> Daytona
>> (Who can post successfully since my ISP designated ulm as moderated)
>
>I don't think any of the moderators would object either, or have any reason
>to take offence at such an investigation. However, they do not have the
>ability to facilitate access to the system.

The charter

http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html#uk.legal.moderated

includes
===
Moderators may use whatever tools they feel appropriate to ensure the 
smooth running of the group.

The moderators shall keep and publish regularly a detailed policy 
document detailing how moderation is currently performed.

Moderators should attempt to ensure that discussions can continue 
without undue delay, and should therefore attempt to make a decision on 
all posts within a few hours of submission.
===

Essentially it is up to the moderators to do something even if some or 
all of the technical aspects are out of their control or understanding.

Since you are one of the original mods I think you should take this back 
to uk.* and suggest an initial e-mail to committee@usenet.org.uk setting 
out the problems as you see them and see what advice they have.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art - Scott McCloud
The Sandman: The Kindly Ones - Gaiman et al

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:22:40 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:43:29 +0100, The Todal put finger to keyboard
>and typed:
>
>>
>>"Daytona"  wrote in message 
>>news:4v0n93lar4n6gqdq0imoh2lk629ss6nmvk@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:27:24 +0100, judith  wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is it time that we sought a volunteer who would take formal
>>>>responsibility for this problem and the day to day running of the ULM
>>>>"system" and interfaces.
>>>
>>> I'd wholeheartedly support the idea of a third party investigating
>>> from a fresh viewpoint. The problems have gone on for too long. Time
>>> to try something else.
>>
>>I don't think any of the moderators would object either, or have any reason 
>>to take offence at such an investigation. However, they do not have the 
>>ability to facilitate access to the system. 
>
>They have the right to request access from the company hosting the
>moderation system. If permission is not given, they have the right to
>move to another provider.

Indeed and I expect Peter Gradwell would be cooperative.  At the very
least, he'd need to close down the cancelbot (which, otherwise, would
try and cancel all articles posted by a replacement moderation
system).

First, though, have the moderators tried to contact {R}?

Mike.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:eunn9351t1m9i2rfkvath4g25o5l5s0ef1@news.kempston.net...
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:22:40 +0100, Mark Goodge
>  wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:43:29 +0100, The Todal put finger to keyboard
>>and typed:
>>
>>>
>>>"Daytona"  wrote in message
>>>news:4v0n93lar4n6gqdq0imoh2lk629ss6nmvk@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:27:24 +0100, judith  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Is it time that we sought a volunteer who would take formal
>>>>>responsibility for this problem and the day to day running of the ULM
>>>>>"system" and interfaces.
>>>>
>>>> I'd wholeheartedly support the idea of a third party investigating
>>>> from a fresh viewpoint. The problems have gone on for too long. Time
>>>> to try something else.
>>>
>>>I don't think any of the moderators would object either, or have any 
>>>reason
>>>to take offence at such an investigation. However, they do not have the
>>>ability to facilitate access to the system.
>>
>>They have the right to request access from the company hosting the
>>moderation system. If permission is not given, they have the right to
>>move to another provider.
>
> Indeed and I expect Peter Gradwell would be cooperative.  At the very
> least, he'd need to close down the cancelbot (which, otherwise, would
> try and cancel all articles posted by a replacement moderation
> system).
>
> First, though, have the moderators tried to contact {R}?

Yes, to the last question.  Does he still post to usenet these days?

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:47:38 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>> First, though, have the moderators tried to contact {R}?
>
>Yes, to the last question.  Does he still post to usenet these days? 

If he's no longer around, the situation is rather more dire than if
he'd simply gone on holiday.

The moderators, or possibly the UK Usenet Committee, are the only
people who can sort this out.  I suggest a note to the owner of the
hosting system on which moderation runs (peter@gradwell.com ? or via
the Web form at http://www.gradwell.com/contact/ ), explaining that
attempts to contact {R} have failed and asking if he will please reset
the password that provides access to the system and provide the
moderators with login details.  The moderators, as a self-perpetuating
oligarchy, can then delegate resolution of the problem to whomever
they see fit.

Mike.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0lvo9357uapm0p6qsbjja7t636d81crq0t@news.kempston.net...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:47:38 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>> First, though, have the moderators tried to contact {R}?
>>
>>Yes, to the last question.  Does he still post to usenet these days?
>
> If he's no longer around, the situation is rather more dire than if
> he'd simply gone on holiday.
>
> The moderators, or possibly the UK Usenet Committee, are the only
> people who can sort this out.  I suggest a note to the owner of the
> hosting system on which moderation runs (peter@gradwell.com ? or via
> the Web form at http://www.gradwell.com/contact/ ), explaining that
> attempts to contact {R} have failed and asking if he will please reset
> the password that provides access to the system and provide the
> moderators with login details.  The moderators, as a self-perpetuating
> oligarchy, can then delegate resolution of the problem to whomever
> they see fit.

This being the holiday season, I'd like to wait a bit longer before going 
along that path.

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:18:21  
uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 

>This being the holiday season, I'd like to wait a bit longer before going
>along that path.

All you have to do to get the ball rolling is send an email to
committee@usenet.org.uk
what is holding you back?

MarkG is a member of the committee and will, I am sure, pick it up on 
the list.  Just send the email, please.  It will only take a minute of 
your time.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art - Scott McCloud
The Sandman: The Kindly Ones - Gaiman et al

Wm... wrote...
> Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:18:21  
> uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 
> 
>> This being the holiday season, I'd like to wait a bit longer before going
>> along that path.
> 
> All you have to do to get the ball rolling is send an email to
> committee@usenet.org.uk
> what is holding you back?
> 
> MarkG is a member of the committee and will, I am sure, pick it up on 
> the list.  Just send the email, please.  It will only take a minute of 
> your time.


I agree with The Todal, Richard has only been technically missing a few 
days, and it would be useful to have his input. I think we can wait for 
him to get back from Cornwall before resetting the password.

Not saying there aren't problems to be fixed, but some of the posts here 
are all very Iraq-ish. Before rolling the tanks all over R, I think we 
could do with some more forethought about who or what is going to 
replace the status quo. What /was/ in that envelope marked 'Plan B'? Any 
guesses?


-- 
Adam Upham.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:50:00 +0100, Adam Upham
 wrote:

>I agree with The Todal, Richard has only been technically missing a few 
>days, and it would be useful to have his input. I think we can wait for 
>him to get back from Cornwall before resetting the password.

That's new information.  I had the impression he'd been missing for
months.  The problems with the moderation system seem to have been
going on for months...

>Not saying there aren't problems to be fixed, but some of the posts here 
>are all very Iraq-ish. Before rolling the tanks all over R, I think we 
>could do with some more forethought about who or what is going to 
>replace the status quo. What /was/ in that envelope marked 'Plan B'? Any 
>guesses?

Plan B, if I may be so bold, is for some new people to cast an eye
over the moderation software and stuff in a few diagnostics with the
idea of producing an audit trail of articles through the system.  That
would identify the part(s) of the system where the failures occur, at
which point one iterates the diagnostics.  It's all bog-standard
software debugging technique.

Plan C, if that fails (which is unlikely), is to start again with a
new moderation system run by a *group* of people, not by a single
individual.  The moderators could invite volunteers if it comes to it.

The point, though, is that progress is in the hands of the moderators
and always has been.

Mike.

Mike wrote...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:50:00 +0100, Adam Upham
>  wrote:
> 
>> I agree with The Todal, Richard has only been technically missing a few 
>> days, and it would be useful to have his input. I think we can wait for 
>> him to get back from Cornwall before resetting the password.
> 
> That's new information.  I had the impression he'd been missing for
> months.  The problems with the moderation system seem to have been
> going on for months...

Cornwall was a guess, but I picture a caravan for some reason. I see a 
post from R in this very group 6 weeks ago which isn't that long. He has 
always been aware of missing posts, but the urgent emails have only 
really been flying about recently as the degradation in service has 
become apparent. That is what is. I know some people see the moderation 
cabal flying around in helicopters together, meeting up for Sunday 
lunches, and chatting away all day on MSN, but trust me, it's not like 
that. R has been notified that his attention is required, it is 
courteous and perhaps even productive to wait for a reply.

>> Not saying there aren't problems to be fixed, but some of the posts here 
>> are all very Iraq-ish. Before rolling the tanks all over R, I think we 
>> could do with some more forethought about who or what is going to 
>> replace the status quo. What /was/ in that envelope marked 'Plan B'? Any 
>> guesses?
> 
> Plan B, if I may be so bold, is for some new people to cast an eye
> over the moderation software and stuff in a few diagnostics with the
> idea of producing an audit trail of articles through the system.  That
> would identify the part(s) of the system where the failures occur, at
> which point one iterates the diagnostics.  It's all bog-standard
> software debugging technique.
> 
> Plan C, if that fails (which is unlikely), is to start again with a
> new moderation system run by a *group* of people, not by a single
> individual.  The moderators could invite volunteers if it comes to it.

ah, 'a new moderation system'

> The point, though, is that progress is in the hands of the moderators
> and always has been.

Indeed, but on usenet input has always been sought from everyone.


-- 
Adam Upham.

"Adam Upham"  wrote in message 
news:f7j979$prm$1@aioe.org...
> Mike wrote...
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:50:00 +0100, Adam Upham
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with The Todal, Richard has only been technically missing a few 
>>> days, and it would be useful to have his input. I think we can wait for 
>>> him to get back from Cornwall before resetting the password.
>>
>> That's new information.  I had the impression he'd been missing for
>> months.  The problems with the moderation system seem to have been
>> going on for months...
>
> Cornwall was a guess, but I picture a caravan for some reason. I see a 
> post from R in this very group 6 weeks ago which isn't that long. He has 
> always been aware of missing posts, but the urgent emails have only really 
> been flying about recently as the degradation in service has become 
> apparent. That is what is. I know some people see the moderation cabal 
> flying around in helicopters together, meeting up for Sunday lunches, and 
> chatting away all day on MSN, but trust me, it's not like that. R has been 
> notified that his attention is required, it is courteous and perhaps even 
> productive to wait for a reply.
>
>>> Not saying there aren't problems to be fixed, but some of the posts here 
>>> are all very Iraq-ish. Before rolling the tanks all over R, I think we 
>>> could do with some more forethought about who or what is going to 
>>> replace the status quo. What /was/ in that envelope marked 'Plan B'? Any 
>>> guesses?
>>
>> Plan B, if I may be so bold, is for some new people to cast an eye
>> over the moderation software and stuff in a few diagnostics with the
>> idea of producing an audit trail of articles through the system.  That
>> would identify the part(s) of the system where the failures occur, at
>> which point one iterates the diagnostics.  It's all bog-standard
>> software debugging technique.
>>
>> Plan C, if that fails (which is unlikely), is to start again with a
>> new moderation system run by a *group* of people, not by a single
>> individual.  The moderators could invite volunteers if it comes to it.
>
> ah, 'a new moderation system'
>
>> The point, though, is that progress is in the hands of the moderators
>> and always has been.
>
> Indeed, but on usenet input has always been sought from everyone.

I like the helicopter idea. Seriously, I am up for trying to put the 
technical bits right, but my knowledge doesn't extend to trying to help.

Adam Upham wrote:

> Cornwall was a guess, but I picture a caravan for some reason. I see a
> post from R in this very group 6 weeks ago which isn't that long. He
> has always been aware of missing posts, but the urgent emails have
> only really been flying about recently as the degradation in service
> has become apparent. That is what is. I know some people see the
> moderation cabal flying around in helicopters together, meeting up
> for Sunday lunches, and chatting away all day on MSN, but trust me,
> it's not like that. R has been notified that his attention is
> required, it is courteous and perhaps even productive to wait for a
> reply.

I agree - we should not act hastily to depose Richard, without his skill and 
unpaid time we would never have got the group started at all.  We should 
give him a reasonable period within which to confirm the level of commitment 
he's now able to make.

If Richard is unable to offer the required time & energy, then the 
moderators must of course co-opt a new technical advisor.  This person would 
ideally be someone of widely-recognised integrity, with access to suitably 
robust moderating software & hosting.    I imagine that one option would be 
to approach the sys-op of a trusted, stable & busy moderated group, and ask 
if we could co-locate into their system?

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:27:24 +0100, judith  wrote:

>Is it time that we sought a volunteer who would take formal
>responsibility for this problem and the day to day running of the ULM
>"system" and interfaces.

I'd wholeheartedly support the idea of a third party investigating
from a fresh viewpoint. The problems have gone on for too long. Time
to try something else.

Daytona
(Who can post successfully since my ISP designated ulm as moderated)

"Daytona"  wrote in message 
news:4v0n93lar4n6gqdq0imoh2lk629ss6nmvk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:27:24 +0100, judith  wrote:
>
>>Is it time that we sought a volunteer who would take formal
>>responsibility for this problem and the day to day running of the ULM
>>"system" and interfaces.
>
> I'd wholeheartedly support the idea of a third party investigating
> from a fresh viewpoint. The problems have gone on for too long. Time
> to try something else.
>
> Daytona
> (Who can post successfully since my ISP designated ulm as moderated)

I don't think any of the moderators would object either, or have any reason 
to take offence at such an investigation. However, they do not have the 
ability to facilitate access to the system.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:43:29 +0100, The Todal put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>
>"Daytona"  wrote in message 
>news:4v0n93lar4n6gqdq0imoh2lk629ss6nmvk@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:27:24 +0100, judith  wrote:
>>
>>>Is it time that we sought a volunteer who would take formal
>>>responsibility for this problem and the day to day running of the ULM
>>>"system" and interfaces.
>>
>> I'd wholeheartedly support the idea of a third party investigating
>> from a fresh viewpoint. The problems have gone on for too long. Time
>> to try something else.
>>
>> Daytona
>> (Who can post successfully since my ISP designated ulm as moderated)
>
>I don't think any of the moderators would object either, or have any reason 
>to take offence at such an investigation. However, they do not have the 
>ability to facilitate access to the system. 

They have the right to request access from the company hosting the
moderation system. If permission is not given, they have the right to
move to another provider.

Mark
-- 
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"I don't care if Monday's blue"

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:43:29 +0100, The Todal put finger to keyboard

>> I don't think any of the moderators would object either, or have any
>> reason to take offence at such an investigation. However, they do
>> not have the ability to facilitate access to the system.
>
> They have the right to request access from the company hosting the
> moderation system. If permission is not given, they have the right to
> move to another provider.

I'm sure you're right Mark, but the present moderating team includes no-one 
with the technical ability to set up an alternative system at that new 
provider.

I think we need to co-opt a sys-op, but this would have be a person of 
considerable reputation and integrity, so that all could be assured that 
their power would not be abused.    Assuming such a person stepped forward, 
we would then have to be guided by their advice upon the best choice of 
software, hosting etc.

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:43:29  
uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 

>
>"Daytona"  wrote in message
>news:4v0n93lar4n6gqdq0imoh2lk629ss6nmvk@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:27:24 +0100, judith  wrote:
>>
>>>Is it time that we sought a volunteer who would take formal
>>>responsibility for this problem and the day to day running of the ULM
>>>"system" and interfaces.
>>
>> I'd wholeheartedly support the idea of a third party investigating
>> from a fresh viewpoint. The problems have gone on for too long. Time
>> to try something else.
>>
>> Daytona
>> (Who can post successfully since my ISP designated ulm as moderated)
>
>I don't think any of the moderators would object either, or have any reason
>to take offence at such an investigation. However, they do not have the
>ability to facilitate access to the system.

The charter

http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html#uk.legal.moderated

includes
===
Moderators may use whatever tools they feel appropriate to ensure the 
smooth running of the group.

The moderators shall keep and publish regularly a detailed policy 
document detailing how moderation is currently performed.

Moderators should attempt to ensure that discussions can continue 
without undue delay, and should therefore attempt to make a decision on 
all posts within a few hours of submission.
===

Essentially it is up to the moderators to do something even if some or 
all of the technical aspects are out of their control or understanding.

Since you are one of the original mods I think you should take this back 
to uk.* and suggest an initial e-mail to committee@usenet.org.uk setting 
out the problems as you see them and see what advice they have.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art - Scott McCloud
The Sandman: The Kindly Ones - Gaiman et al

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:22:40 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:43:29 +0100, The Todal put finger to keyboard
>and typed:
>
>>
>>"Daytona"  wrote in message 
>>news:4v0n93lar4n6gqdq0imoh2lk629ss6nmvk@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:27:24 +0100, judith  wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is it time that we sought a volunteer who would take formal
>>>>responsibility for this problem and the day to day running of the ULM
>>>>"system" and interfaces.
>>>
>>> I'd wholeheartedly support the idea of a third party investigating
>>> from a fresh viewpoint. The problems have gone on for too long. Time
>>> to try something else.
>>
>>I don't think any of the moderators would object either, or have any reason 
>>to take offence at such an investigation. However, they do not have the 
>>ability to facilitate access to the system. 
>
>They have the right to request access from the company hosting the
>moderation system. If permission is not given, they have the right to
>move to another provider.

Indeed and I expect Peter Gradwell would be cooperative.  At the very
least, he'd need to close down the cancelbot (which, otherwise, would
try and cancel all articles posted by a replacement moderation
system).

First, though, have the moderators tried to contact {R}?

Mike.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:eunn9351t1m9i2rfkvath4g25o5l5s0ef1@news.kempston.net...
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:22:40 +0100, Mark Goodge
>  wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:43:29 +0100, The Todal put finger to keyboard
>>and typed:
>>
>>>
>>>"Daytona"  wrote in message
>>>news:4v0n93lar4n6gqdq0imoh2lk629ss6nmvk@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:27:24 +0100, judith  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Is it time that we sought a volunteer who would take formal
>>>>>responsibility for this problem and the day to day running of the ULM
>>>>>"system" and interfaces.
>>>>
>>>> I'd wholeheartedly support the idea of a third party investigating
>>>> from a fresh viewpoint. The problems have gone on for too long. Time
>>>> to try something else.
>>>
>>>I don't think any of the moderators would object either, or have any 
>>>reason
>>>to take offence at such an investigation. However, they do not have the
>>>ability to facilitate access to the system.
>>
>>They have the right to request access from the company hosting the
>>moderation system. If permission is not given, they have the right to
>>move to another provider.
>
> Indeed and I expect Peter Gradwell would be cooperative.  At the very
> least, he'd need to close down the cancelbot (which, otherwise, would
> try and cancel all articles posted by a replacement moderation
> system).
>
> First, though, have the moderators tried to contact {R}?

Yes, to the last question.  Does he still post to usenet these days?

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:47:38 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>> First, though, have the moderators tried to contact {R}?
>
>Yes, to the last question.  Does he still post to usenet these days? 

If he's no longer around, the situation is rather more dire than if
he'd simply gone on holiday.

The moderators, or possibly the UK Usenet Committee, are the only
people who can sort this out.  I suggest a note to the owner of the
hosting system on which moderation runs (peter@gradwell.com ? or via
the Web form at http://www.gradwell.com/contact/ ), explaining that
attempts to contact {R} have failed and asking if he will please reset
the password that provides access to the system and provide the
moderators with login details.  The moderators, as a self-perpetuating
oligarchy, can then delegate resolution of the problem to whomever
they see fit.

Mike.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:0lvo9357uapm0p6qsbjja7t636d81crq0t@news.kempston.net...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:47:38 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>> First, though, have the moderators tried to contact {R}?
>>
>>Yes, to the last question.  Does he still post to usenet these days?
>
> If he's no longer around, the situation is rather more dire than if
> he'd simply gone on holiday.
>
> The moderators, or possibly the UK Usenet Committee, are the only
> people who can sort this out.  I suggest a note to the owner of the
> hosting system on which moderation runs (peter@gradwell.com ? or via
> the Web form at http://www.gradwell.com/contact/ ), explaining that
> attempts to contact {R} have failed and asking if he will please reset
> the password that provides access to the system and provide the
> moderators with login details.  The moderators, as a self-perpetuating
> oligarchy, can then delegate resolution of the problem to whomever
> they see fit.

This being the holiday season, I'd like to wait a bit longer before going 
along that path.

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:18:21  
uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 

>This being the holiday season, I'd like to wait a bit longer before going
>along that path.

All you have to do to get the ball rolling is send an email to
committee@usenet.org.uk
what is holding you back?

MarkG is a member of the committee and will, I am sure, pick it up on 
the list.  Just send the email, please.  It will only take a minute of 
your time.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art - Scott McCloud
The Sandman: The Kindly Ones - Gaiman et al

Wm... wrote...
> Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:18:21  
> uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 
> 
>> This being the holiday season, I'd like to wait a bit longer before going
>> along that path.
> 
> All you have to do to get the ball rolling is send an email to
> committee@usenet.org.uk
> what is holding you back?
> 
> MarkG is a member of the committee and will, I am sure, pick it up on 
> the list.  Just send the email, please.  It will only take a minute of 
> your time.


I agree with The Todal, Richard has only been technically missing a few 
days, and it would be useful to have his input. I think we can wait for 
him to get back from Cornwall before resetting the password.

Not saying there aren't problems to be fixed, but some of the posts here 
are all very Iraq-ish. Before rolling the tanks all over R, I think we 
could do with some more forethought about who or what is going to 
replace the status quo. What /was/ in that envelope marked 'Plan B'? Any 
guesses?


-- 
Adam Upham.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:50:00 +0100, Adam Upham
 wrote:

>I agree with The Todal, Richard has only been technically missing a few 
>days, and it would be useful to have his input. I think we can wait for 
>him to get back from Cornwall before resetting the password.

That's new information.  I had the impression he'd been missing for
months.  The problems with the moderation system seem to have been
going on for months...

>Not saying there aren't problems to be fixed, but some of the posts here 
>are all very Iraq-ish. Before rolling the tanks all over R, I think we 
>could do with some more forethought about who or what is going to 
>replace the status quo. What /was/ in that envelope marked 'Plan B'? Any 
>guesses?

Plan B, if I may be so bold, is for some new people to cast an eye
over the moderation software and stuff in a few diagnostics with the
idea of producing an audit trail of articles through the system.  That
would identify the part(s) of the system where the failures occur, at
which point one iterates the diagnostics.  It's all bog-standard
software debugging technique.

Plan C, if that fails (which is unlikely), is to start again with a
new moderation system run by a *group* of people, not by a single
individual.  The moderators could invite volunteers if it comes to it.

The point, though, is that progress is in the hands of the moderators
and always has been.

Mike.

Mike wrote...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:50:00 +0100, Adam Upham
>  wrote:
> 
>> I agree with The Todal, Richard has only been technically missing a few 
>> days, and it would be useful to have his input. I think we can wait for 
>> him to get back from Cornwall before resetting the password.
> 
> That's new information.  I had the impression he'd been missing for
> months.  The problems with the moderation system seem to have been
> going on for months...

Cornwall was a guess, but I picture a caravan for some reason. I see a 
post from R in this very group 6 weeks ago which isn't that long. He has 
always been aware of missing posts, but the urgent emails have only 
really been flying about recently as the degradation in service has 
become apparent. That is what is. I know some people see the moderation 
cabal flying around in helicopters together, meeting up for Sunday 
lunches, and chatting away all day on MSN, but trust me, it's not like 
that. R has been notified that his attention is required, it is 
courteous and perhaps even productive to wait for a reply.

>> Not saying there aren't problems to be fixed, but some of the posts here 
>> are all very Iraq-ish. Before rolling the tanks all over R, I think we 
>> could do with some more forethought about who or what is going to 
>> replace the status quo. What /was/ in that envelope marked 'Plan B'? Any 
>> guesses?
> 
> Plan B, if I may be so bold, is for some new people to cast an eye
> over the moderation software and stuff in a few diagnostics with the
> idea of producing an audit trail of articles through the system.  That
> would identify the part(s) of the system where the failures occur, at
> which point one iterates the diagnostics.  It's all bog-standard
> software debugging technique.
> 
> Plan C, if that fails (which is unlikely), is to start again with a
> new moderation system run by a *group* of people, not by a single
> individual.  The moderators could invite volunteers if it comes to it.

ah, 'a new moderation system'

> The point, though, is that progress is in the hands of the moderators
> and always has been.

Indeed, but on usenet input has always been sought from everyone.


-- 
Adam Upham.

"Adam Upham"  wrote in message 
news:f7j979$prm$1@aioe.org...
> Mike wrote...
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:50:00 +0100, Adam Upham
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with The Todal, Richard has only been technically missing a few 
>>> days, and it would be useful to have his input. I think we can wait for 
>>> him to get back from Cornwall before resetting the password.
>>
>> That's new information.  I had the impression he'd been missing for
>> months.  The problems with the moderation system seem to have been
>> going on for months...
>
> Cornwall was a guess, but I picture a caravan for some reason. I see a 
> post from R in this very group 6 weeks ago which isn't that long. He has 
> always been aware of missing posts, but the urgent emails have only really 
> been flying about recently as the degradation in service has become 
> apparent. That is what is. I know some people see the moderation cabal 
> flying around in helicopters together, meeting up for Sunday lunches, and 
> chatting away all day on MSN, but trust me, it's not like that. R has been 
> notified that his attention is required, it is courteous and perhaps even 
> productive to wait for a reply.
>
>>> Not saying there aren't problems to be fixed, but some of the posts here 
>>> are all very Iraq-ish. Before rolling the tanks all over R, I think we 
>>> could do with some more forethought about who or what is going to 
>>> replace the status quo. What /was/ in that envelope marked 'Plan B'? Any 
>>> guesses?
>>
>> Plan B, if I may be so bold, is for some new people to cast an eye
>> over the moderation software and stuff in a few diagnostics with the
>> idea of producing an audit trail of articles through the system.  That
>> would identify the part(s) of the system where the failures occur, at
>> which point one iterates the diagnostics.  It's all bog-standard
>> software debugging technique.
>>
>> Plan C, if that fails (which is unlikely), is to start again with a
>> new moderation system run by a *group* of people, not by a single
>> individual.  The moderators could invite volunteers if it comes to it.
>
> ah, 'a new moderation system'
>
>> The point, though, is that progress is in the hands of the moderators
>> and always has been.
>
> Indeed, but on usenet input has always been sought from everyone.

I like the helicopter idea. Seriously, I am up for trying to put the 
technical bits right, but my knowledge doesn't extend to trying to help.

Adam Upham wrote:

> Cornwall was a guess, but I picture a caravan for some reason. I see a
> post from R in this very group 6 weeks ago which isn't that long. He
> has always been aware of missing posts, but the urgent emails have
> only really been flying about recently as the degradation in service
> has become apparent. That is what is. I know some people see the
> moderation cabal flying around in helicopters together, meeting up
> for Sunday lunches, and chatting away all day on MSN, but trust me,
> it's not like that. R has been notified that his attention is
> required, it is courteous and perhaps even productive to wait for a
> reply.

I agree - we should not act hastily to depose Richard, without his skill and 
unpaid time we would never have got the group started at all.  We should 
give him a reasonable period within which to confirm the level of commitment 
he's now able to make.

If Richard is unable to offer the required time & energy, then the 
moderators must of course co-opt a new technical advisor.  This person would 
ideally be someone of widely-recognised integrity, with access to suitably 
robust moderating software & hosting.    I imagine that one option would be 
to approach the sys-op of a trusted, stable & busy moderated group, and ask 
if we could co-locate into their system?