Alba at 20:58, 2 October 2010

2010-10-02T20:58:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 2 October 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Message-ID: <i86ugo$9c5$1@news.albasani.net>		Message-ID: <i86ugo$9c5$1@news.albasani.net>

	~~MODERATOR VACANCY INVESTIGATION~~ (~~MVI~~)		REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
	moderated group rec.arts.sf.reviews		moderated group rec.arts.sf.reviews

	This is a formal ~~Moderator Vacancy Investigation~~ (~~MVI~~)~~, begun because~~		This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove moderated
	~~moderated~~ newsgroup rec.arts.sf.reviews ~~is not functioning,~~		newsgroup rec.arts.sf.reviews.
	~~and may have been abandoned by its moderator(s).~~

	~~This investigation will attempt to verify the reasons for non-function,~~
	~~and may result in the removal of the group or the selection and instal-~~
	~~lation 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~~.

	RATIONALE:		RATIONALE:
Line 32:		Line 25:
	<sf-reviews@postmodern.com>... User unknown		<sf-reviews@postmodern.com>... User unknown

			Aahz Maruch forwarded the MVI to Alan Wexelblat, the moderator of
			record, and got no response.
			> >Message-ID: <i3p7pg$m5p$1@panix5.panix.com>
			Stephen Graham said he would be willing to serve as moderator, but is
			concerned that the long period without posts will make it difficult
			to get started again. He posted a query to related groups and received
			negative response.
			> >Message-ID: <DMWdnT_ULIxbt_3RnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
			> >Message-ID: <Asedne3CkrmY--jRnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
	NEWSGROUPS LINE:		NEWSGROUPS LINE:

Line 87:		Line 89:
	PROCEDURE:		PROCEDURE:

	Those who wish to comment on this ~~moderator vacancy investigation~~ should		Those who wish to comment on this request to remove this newsgroup should
	subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the relevant		subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the relevant threads
	~~threads~~ in that newsgroup.		in that newsgroup.

	To this end, the followup header of this ~~MVI~~ has been set to		To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
	news.groups.proposals.		news.groups.proposals.

	For more information on the ~~MVI~~ process, please see		In the course of the removal process four formal announcements are posted
			(MVI, 1st RFD, 2nd RFD, and LCC), each taking two weeks. At the end of the
			process the B8MB will vote on the issue.

			Available options for rec.arts.sf.reviews are:
			- leave the group as it is
			- remove the group

			For more information on the removal process, please see

	http://www.big-8.org/wiki/~~Moderator_Vacancy_Investigations~~		http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Group_Removal_FAQ

	CHANGE HISTORY:		CHANGE HISTORY:
Line 102:		Line 112:
	2010-05-20 First probe post		2010-05-20 First probe post
	2010-08-09 Moderator Vacancy Investigation		2010-08-09 Moderator Vacancy Investigation
			2010-08-23 1st RFD
			2010-09-06 2nd RFD
			2010-10-02 LCC
	</pre>		</pre>

Alba: Created page with "

 From: Big-8 Management Board  Subject: RFD: rec.arts.sf.reviews moderated (remove) LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 08:27:27 EDT Message-ID: 
2010-10-02T20:33:49Z
Created page with "<pre> From: Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> Subject: RFD: rec.arts.sf.reviews moderated (remove) LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 08:27:27 EDT Message-ID: <i..."
New page
<pre>

From: Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org>

Subject: RFD: rec.arts.sf.reviews moderated (remove) LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS

Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 08:27:27 EDT

Message-ID: <i86ugo$9c5$1@news.albasani.net>



              MODERATOR VACANCY INVESTIGATION (MVI)

              moderated group rec.arts.sf.reviews



This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because

moderated newsgroup rec.arts.sf.reviews is not functioning,

and may have been abandoned by its moderator(s).



This investigation will attempt to verify the reasons for non-function,

and may result in the removal of the group or the selection and instal-

lation 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.



RATIONALE:



According to Google's archive the last regular post was approved on

2004-12-07. The last regular crosspost (approved by the moderators of

rec.arts.movies.reviews) was published 2005-04-26.



A probe message resulted in a bounce.



sf-reviews@postmodern.com

  (generated from rec-arts-sf-reviews@moderators.isc.org)

  SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<sf-reviews@postmodern.com>:

  host penguin.postmodern.com [75.101.18.162]: 550 5.1.1

  <sf-reviews@postmodern.com>... User unknown



NEWSGROUPS LINE:



rec.arts.sf.reviews	Reviews of science fiction/fantasy/horror works. (Moderated)



DISTRIBUTION:



news.announce.newgroups

news.groups.proposals

rec.arts.sf.reviews

rec.arts.sf.misc



CHARTER OF REC.ARTS.SF.REVIEWS



  rec.arts.sf-reviews will be a moderated newsgroup, under shared

  moderation, whose purpose is to distribute reviews and critical 

  reviews of works of interest to the science fiction/fantasy/horror 

  community.  



  "Works" includes but is not limited to:  books, short stories, 

  movies, "graphic novels," and any other publically-available media.



  "Of interest to the sf/f/h community" will be interpreted

  liberally by the sitting moderator.  The discussion period for

  the creation of this group has led to the conclusion that nonfiction 

  or other kinds of fiction by and/or about sf/f/h writers would be 

  permitted, as well as non-fiction of a sort related to one of the 

  above (e.g., speculative science books or mythographies).  



  Reviews of individual episodes or issues of continuing TV series, 

  comic books, etc., would most likely _not_ be permitted; however, 

  reviews of such series as a whole, or of large "arcs" of such

  series, would most likely be permitted.  As noted, however, this 

  would be up to the judgement of the sitting moderator, as influenced

  by the readership.



  Multiple reviews of the same work(s) will be welcome, as will

  single reviews of multiple works.  Comments on reviews will be 

  passed to the newsgroup on a _highly_ selective basis:  generally, 

  they must say something new about the work, rather than simply 

  discussing the review.  This is not intended to stifle debate 

  but to keep the content/noise ratio as high as possible.



HISTORY OF THE GROUP:



rec.arts.sf-reviews is a moderated newsgroup which passed its vote for

creation by 342:25 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 8 May 1991.

rec.arts.sf.reviews supersedes it as per the 714:86 vote in the

rec.arts.sf reorganization results announced on 13 October 1991.



PROPONENT:



Alexander Bartolich <alexander.bartolich@gmx.at>



PROCEDURE:



Those who wish to comment on this moderator vacancy investigation should

subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the relevant

threads in that newsgroup.  



To this end, the followup header of this MVI has been set to 

news.groups.proposals.



For more information on the MVI process, please see 



http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Moderator_Vacancy_Investigations



CHANGE HISTORY:



2010-05-20	First probe post

2010-08-09	Moderator Vacancy Investigation

</pre>

Nan:2010-10-02-lcc-rec.arts.sf.reviews - Revision history

Alba at 20:58, 2 October 2010