RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#37

Author: Kingfish
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 21:38

148 lines
7994 bytes

Proposed Revised Posting Rules for the co.* hierarchy 08/03/2002
If approved by consensus these rules will go into effect 8/18/2002


These newsgroup posting guidelines apply only to the co.* hierarchy, and
will remain in force until such time as a committee is formed to assume
responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of the hierarchy or they are
changed by consensus.


Introduction:

In Usenet tradition, there are generally only two kinds of newsgroups -
moderated and unmoderated.  The difference between the two is that anyone
can post just about anything they want to an unmoderated group, whereas
nobody can post anything to a moderated group without the approval of the
moderator.

Readers and posters are expected to give their full support to this charter
so that the co.* newsgroups don't turn into cesspools of inappropriate
crossposts and flamewars.  But first, they need to know some of the rules
that have been handed down by the original creators of the Usenet newsgroups
as well as some that have been added by the current users of the co.*
hierarchy. Here are some of the more important do's and don'ts:

1. Do not post binaries, HTML, v-cards, or other non-standard stuff in the
co.* hierarchy.  Usenet is a plain text medium, which was never intended to
be an extension of the World Wide Web. Instead of posting stuff from your
website to a newsgroup, post
a pointer telling people where to find your website, and what they can
expect to see.

2. Do not advertise in non ads groups.  If a group has "ads" as part of it's
name, it is ok to advertise in that group; likewise if a group does not have
"ads" in the title of the group, advertising is not permitted in that group.
Do not repost ads from others, allow the authors of an ad to decide on its
proper placement and do not post Make Money Fast get-rich-quick schemes or
chain letters.  Posting ads in non-ads groups will be considered a violation
of the co.* hierarchy charter and you will be reported to your ISP or
news-service and you will lose your account.


3. Do not crosspost to more than 5 groups, including the co.* group from
which you are posting, and be careful when crossposting to newsgroups in
other hierarchies.  Different hierarchies have different rules and, when you
crosspost to another hierarchy, your article is subject to those other
rules.

4. Check the newsgroups line before responding to an article. If more than
five groups are listed, delete the least appropriate group(s) until there
are only five left.  Adjust follow-ups as well, if that appears to be
necessary.  Then, at the top of your article, insert something like the
following note in brackets:

[newsgroups trimmed -- the co.* hierarchy has a 5G crosspost limit]

5. Do not post or crosspost to moderated groups unless you have read the
charter and understand the moderation rules.  An article sent to a moderated
group will not be posted anywhere until and unless it is approved by the
moderator of the moderated group.

6.  Do not quote an entire message just to respond to one point. It is
better to quote only the part you are responding to, and to cut everything
else from your response.  Also, be careful when making attributions as to
who made the statement you are responding to.  Most software will insert the
attribution lines for you, but you should always check to be sure they are
correct. Other people will be upset if you make a mistake and put words
in their mouth.

7.  Set your line width at no more than 75 characters.  This allows an
additional five spaces for the quote marks in follow-ups so that other
posters don't have to reformat your articles in order to send a readable
reply.

8. Do not SHOUT at people by posting in ALL CAPS, even if you are really
angry.  Use asterisks (*) or underlines (_) instead to emphasize words or
phrases. It is easier to read "I am really angry with you" than it is to
read "I AM REALLY ANGRY WITH
YOU."

9. Do not post articles in other people's names, not even in jest. Forgery
is taken quite seriously in Usenet, and you could lose your account.

10.  Do not post private email in the newsgroups without permission from
your correspondent.  When people see their email spread around, they tend to
quickly lose faith in the person who spread it. If by chance you _do_
accidentally post email to a newsgroup, be sure to apologize right away.



11. "Flood Attacks" or posting mass groups of messages pushes other posts
off of various news servers and amounts to a Denial of Service to other
messages in a group.  Violators will be reported to their ISP and/or
newsgroup/news-service provider.


12. Beware of heated conversations.  Sometimes they turn into flamewars,
which are often very hard to stop.  If you see a flamewar brewing, try not
to get involved.  If you find yourself in strong disagreement with another
poster, ask yourself if it is worth it to
respond.  If your response is likely to start or continue a flamewar, it
might be best to _not_ respond rather than add fuel to the fire. There is no
rule that says you must respond to every article.

Cancellation Policy:

Certain articles may be subject to cancellation, including but not limited
to: Make-Money-Fast chain letters and pyramid schemes; binaries in
non-binary groups; and advertising in groups not designated for advertising
with ".ads" as part of its' name and "flooding".  The best way to avoid such
cancellations is to not post these types of articles and to not "spam" in
Usenet.

Third-party cancels will be issued for blatant violations of the posting
guidelines found in the paragraph above.

If a poster or service provider feels a cancel was unfair, an appeal may be
posted for discussion in co.config.  The decision will be made by consensus
of the group in co.config, and apologies will be made to anyone who can show
that a cancel was unfair.

Suspected forgeries will be reported directly to the originating site.

Unauthorized use of registered domains will be reported directly to the
domain whose name is apparently being misused.

For further information on cancels, see Tim Skirvin's Cancel FAQ at:
http://www.killfile.org/faqs/cancel.html

Amendments:

These rules may not be amended without full RFD discussion in co.config.
Any person may post an RFD suggesting amendments to these rules.  The
procedure to be followed will be the same as for a newsgroup proposal -- two
weeks minimum discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully) a
decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting any
votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
propose and adopt its own posting rules.

Approved by consensus in co.config on   ?????????




---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#39

Author: Maraya
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 22:13

12 lines
1308 bytes

[snipped]

1.  What if no one responds to your proposal?  How many people read this group?
How do you propose to ascertain that you've reached consensus?

2.  Who gets to be on your proposed committee?  How many people make a
committee?  How do we know that all of the people who volunteer aren't actually
*you?*  We don't even know who you are.

3.  Get a life.

Maraya

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#38

Author: harlan bettencourt
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 00:06

154 lines
8001 bytes

On Sat, 03 Aug 2002 21:38:48 GMT, "Kingfish"
<spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Proposed Revised Posting Rules for the co.* hierarchy 08/03/2002
>If approved by consensus these rules will go into effect 8/18/2002
>
>
>These newsgroup posting guidelines apply only to the co.* hierarchy, and
>will remain in force until such time as a committee is formed to assume
>responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of the hierarchy or they are
>changed by consensus.
>
>
>Introduction:
>
>In Usenet tradition, there are generally only two kinds of newsgroups -
>moderated and unmoderated.  The difference between the two is that anyone
>can post just about anything they want to an unmoderated group, whereas
>nobody can post anything to a moderated group without the approval of the
>moderator.
>
>Readers and posters are expected to give their full support to this charter
>so that the co.* newsgroups don't turn into cesspools of inappropriate
>crossposts and flamewars.  But first, they need to know some of the rules
>that have been handed down by the original creators of the Usenet newsgroups
>as well as some that have been added by the current users of the co.*
>hierarchy. Here are some of the more important do's and don'ts:
>
>1. Do not post binaries, HTML, v-cards, or other non-standard stuff in the
>co.* hierarchy.  Usenet is a plain text medium, which was never intended to
>be an extension of the World Wide Web. Instead of posting stuff from your
>website to a newsgroup, post
>a pointer telling people where to find your website, and what they can
>expect to see.
>
>2. Do not advertise in non ads groups.  If a group has "ads" as part of it's
>name, it is ok to advertise in that group; likewise if a group does not have
>"ads" in the title of the group, advertising is not permitted in that group.
>Do not repost ads from others, allow the authors of an ad to decide on its
>proper placement and do not post Make Money Fast get-rich-quick schemes or
>chain letters.  Posting ads in non-ads groups will be considered a violation
>of the co.* hierarchy charter and you will be reported to your ISP or
>news-service and you will lose your account.
>
>
>3. Do not crosspost to more than 5 groups, including the co.* group from
>which you are posting, and be careful when crossposting to newsgroups in
>other hierarchies.  Different hierarchies have different rules and, when you
>crosspost to another hierarchy, your article is subject to those other
>rules.
>
>4. Check the newsgroups line before responding to an article. If more than
>five groups are listed, delete the least appropriate group(s) until there
>are only five left.  Adjust follow-ups as well, if that appears to be
>necessary.  Then, at the top of your article, insert something like the
>following note in brackets:
>
>[newsgroups trimmed -- the co.* hierarchy has a 5G crosspost limit]
>
>5. Do not post or crosspost to moderated groups unless you have read the
>charter and understand the moderation rules.  An article sent to a moderated
>group will not be posted anywhere until and unless it is approved by the
>moderator of the moderated group.
>
>6.  Do not quote an entire message just to respond to one point. It is
>better to quote only the part you are responding to, and to cut everything
>else from your response.  Also, be careful when making attributions as to
>who made the statement you are responding to.  Most software will insert the
>attribution lines for you, but you should always check to be sure they are
>correct. Other people will be upset if you make a mistake and put words
>in their mouth.
>
>7.  Set your line width at no more than 75 characters.  This allows an
>additional five spaces for the quote marks in follow-ups so that other
>posters don't have to reformat your articles in order to send a readable
>reply.
>
>8. Do not SHOUT at people by posting in ALL CAPS, even if you are really
>angry.  Use asterisks (*) or underlines (_) instead to emphasize words or
>phrases. It is easier to read "I am really angry with you" than it is to
>read "I AM REALLY ANGRY WITH
>YOU."
>
>9. Do not post articles in other people's names, not even in jest. Forgery
>is taken quite seriously in Usenet, and you could lose your account.
>
>10.  Do not post private email in the newsgroups without permission from
>your correspondent.  When people see their email spread around, they tend to
>quickly lose faith in the person who spread it. If by chance you _do_
>accidentally post email to a newsgroup, be sure to apologize right away.
>
>
>
>11. "Flood Attacks" or posting mass groups of messages pushes other posts
>off of various news servers and amounts to a Denial of Service to other
>messages in a group.  Violators will be reported to their ISP and/or
>newsgroup/news-service provider.
>
>
>12. Beware of heated conversations.  Sometimes they turn into flamewars,
>which are often very hard to stop.  If you see a flamewar brewing, try not
>to get involved.  If you find yourself in strong disagreement with another
>poster, ask yourself if it is worth it to
>respond.  If your response is likely to start or continue a flamewar, it
>might be best to _not_ respond rather than add fuel to the fire. There is no
>rule that says you must respond to every article.
>
>Cancellation Policy:
>
>Certain articles may be subject to cancellation, including but not limited
>to: Make-Money-Fast chain letters and pyramid schemes; binaries in
>non-binary groups; and advertising in groups not designated for advertising
>with ".ads" as part of its' name and "flooding".  The best way to avoid such
>cancellations is to not post these types of articles and to not "spam" in
>Usenet.
>
>Third-party cancels will be issued for blatant violations of the posting
>guidelines found in the paragraph above.
>
>If a poster or service provider feels a cancel was unfair, an appeal may be
>posted for discussion in co.config.  The decision will be made by consensus
>of the group in co.config, and apologies will be made to anyone who can show
>that a cancel was unfair.
>
>Suspected forgeries will be reported directly to the originating site.
>
>Unauthorized use of registered domains will be reported directly to the
>domain whose name is apparently being misused.
>
>For further information on cancels, see Tim Skirvin's Cancel FAQ at:
>http://www.killfile.org/faqs/cancel.html
>
>Amendments:
>
>These rules may not be amended without full RFD discussion in co.config.
>Any person may post an RFD suggesting amendments to these rules.  The
>procedure to be followed will be the same as for a newsgroup proposal -- two
>weeks minimum discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully) a
>decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting any
>votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>
>Approved by consensus in co.config on   ?????????
>
>
>
>
>---
>
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
>
>
Yes vote.

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#40

Author: Kingfish
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 04:04

35 lines
2070 bytes

"Maraya" <maraya@dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:3D4C55A2.7262AB32@dimensional.com...
: [snipped]
:
: 1.  What if no one responds to your proposal?  How many people read this
group?
: How do you propose to ascertain that you've reached consensus?
:

feel free to anounce it anywhere.  I have mentioned several times to watch
co.config to all ngs in co.*


: 2.  Who gets to be on your proposed committee?  How many people make a
: committee?  How do we know that all of the people who volunteer aren't
actually
: *you?*  We don't even know who you are.
:
I purpose no comittee.  That was part of the origonal charter, if such a
comittee is desired then by consensus here it could be formed.

: 3.  Get a life.
:
: Maraya
:

read the original charter and do some comparison.  It has been posted here
recently.


---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#46

Author: Maraya
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 04:53

46 lines
2195 bytes


Kingfish wrote:

> "Maraya" <maraya@dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:3D4C55A2.7262AB32@dimensional.com...
> : [snipped]
> :
> : 1.  What if no one responds to your proposal?  How many people read this
> group?
> : How do you propose to ascertain that you've reached consensus?
> :
>
> feel free to anounce it anywhere.  I have mentioned several times to watch
> co.config to all ngs in co.*

You have not responded to my questions.


>
>
> : 2.  Who gets to be on your proposed committee?  How many people make a
> : committee?  How do we know that all of the people who volunteer aren't
> actually
> : *you?*  We don't even know who you are.
> :
> I purpose no comittee.  That was part of the origonal charter, if such a
> comittee is desired then by consensus here it could be formed.

Please clarify precisely what part is a revision, and what part is not.


>
>
> : 3.  Get a life.
> :
> : Maraya
> :
>
> read the original charter and do some comparison.  It has been posted here
> recently.

If you are proposing a revision, it is up to you to be quite clear about what
you are revising.  No one should have to parse everything to figure it out.

Maraya

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#43

Author: Tom Morgengill
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 14:00

82 lines
3984 bytes

The Kingfish's suggestion (RFD) is improper.  Anything broken can be
repaired.   Here is an example of this: 

Kingfish wrote:

>>These rules may not be amended without full RFD discussion in co.config.
>>Any person may post an RFD suggesting amendments to these rules.  The
>>procedure to be followed will be the same as for a newsgroup proposal -- two
>>weeks minimum discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully) a
>>decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting any
>>votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>>propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>>
>>Approved by consensus in co.config on   ?????????
>>
>>---
>>
>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
>
And Harlan Bettencourt decided to vote anyway....

>Yes vote.

On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 04:04:13 GMT, "Kingfish"
<spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Maraya" <maraya@dimensional.com> wrote in message
>news:3D4C55A2.7262AB32@dimensional.com...
>: [snipped]
>:
>: 1.  What if no one responds to your proposal?  How many people read this
>group?
>: How do you propose to ascertain that you've reached consensus?
>:
>
>feel free to anounce it anywhere.  I have mentioned several times to watch
>co.config to all ngs in co.*
>
This is not usenet protocol. We can't simply make up the rules to suit
our own individual needs.  If the usenet community does not accept a
charter as being reasonable, then to create it is a waste of time.
The proper protocol in itself is important.  Should a complaint be
lodged and this be brought to the attention of the usenet
administrator, you will have little support from that administrator in
enforcing it. 
>
>: 2.  Who gets to be on your proposed committee?  How many people make a
>: committee?  How do we know that all of the people who volunteer aren't
>actually
>: *you?*  We don't even know who you are.
>:
>I purpose no comittee.  That was part of the origonal charter, if such a
>comittee is desired then by consensus here it could be formed.
>
You need to collect your thoughts more accurately. In your original
post (suggestion/RFD) you said:

>Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>propose and adopt its own posting rules.

Now you state that you are proposing no committee? 
This is why there is specific protocol for creating/changing charters.
When creating a charter for a non-moderating newsgroup it is important
to realize that enforcing it is simply not possible.  For that reason,
most non-moderated group charters are written very loosely and the
kill file was created.    

>: 3.  Get a life.
>:
>: Maraya
>:
>
>read the original charter and do some comparison.  It has been posted here
>recently.
>
>
>---
>
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#44

Author: Kingfish
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 16:00

295 lines
13670 bytes

"Tom Morgengill" <tmorgen@nonewsguy.com> wrote in message
news:57cqku0a7qp7ucbq9r2epcrfpdobt13kqk@4ax.com...
: The Kingfish's suggestion (RFD) is improper.  Anything broken can be
: repaired.   Here is an example of this:
:
: Kingfish wrote:
:
: >>These rules may not be amended without full RFD discussion in co.config.
: >>Any person may post an RFD suggesting amendments to these rules.  The
: >>procedure to be followed will be the same as for a newsgroup proposal --
two
: >>weeks minimum discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully)
a
: >>decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting any
: >>votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
: >>propose and adopt its own posting rules.
: >>
: >>Approved by consensus in co.config on   ?????????
: >>
: >>---
: >>
: >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
: >>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
: >
: And Harlan Bettencourt decided to vote anyway....
:
: >Yes vote.
:
: On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 04:04:13 GMT, "Kingfish"
: <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
: >
: >"Maraya" <maraya@dimensional.com> wrote in message
: >news:3D4C55A2.7262AB32@dimensional.com...
: >: [snipped]
: >:
: >: 1.  What if no one responds to your proposal?  How many people read
this
: >group?
: >: How do you propose to ascertain that you've reached consensus?
: >:
: >
: >feel free to anounce it anywhere.  I have mentioned several times to
watch
: >co.config to all ngs in co.*
: >
: This is not usenet protocol. We can't simply make up the rules to suit
: our own individual needs.  If the usenet community does not accept a
: charter as being reasonable, then to create it is a waste of time.
: The proper protocol in itself is important.  Should a complaint be
: lodged and this be brought to the attention of the usenet
: administrator, you will have little support from that administrator in
: enforcing it.

Please point us to the protocol then.  Without documentation as to *why*
this is improper, your point is invalid.  The origonal charter for the co.*
heirarchy provided for it to be changed, in co.config through an RFD. The
admion for co.* is AWOL and has been for at least 2 years.  Therefore there
is no admin to issue cancels, to create new newsgroups; and the current
charter is insufficent to handle to problems that have arisen recently in
co.general without revision.  Now is a proper time for the charter to be
brought up to speed - if you dissagree with a particular part of the charter
as it is proposed, you are welcome to make suggestions or to make additions
where you see fit - but what I have proposed is in accordance with the co.*
heirarchy charter as it was written and accepted.  (see the bottom of this
message for the old charter)



: >
: >: 2.  Who gets to be on your proposed committee?  How many people make a
: >: committee?  How do we know that all of the people who volunteer aren't
: >actually
: >: *you?*  We don't even know who you are.
: >:
: >I purpose no comittee.  That was part of the origonal charter, if such a
: >comittee is desired then by consensus here it could be formed.
: >
: You need to collect your thoughts more accurately. In your original
: post (suggestion/RFD) you said:
:
: >Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
: >propose and adopt its own posting rules.
:
: Now you state that you are proposing no committee?
: This is why there is specific protocol for creating/changing charters.
: When creating a charter for a non-moderating newsgroup it is important
: to realize that enforcing it is simply not possible.  For that reason,
: most non-moderated group charters are written very loosely and the
: kill file was created.

This was in the origonal charter, that was posted here in this group.  This
leaves the option open for such a comittee.


: >: 3.  Get a life.
: >:
: >: Maraya
: >:
: >
: >read the original charter and do some comparison.  It has been posted
here
: >recently.
: >
: >
: >---
: >
: >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
: >Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
:



--------------------------------------------------------------
-------old but still in effect charter follows--------
--------------------------------------------------------------

              Posting Rules for the co.* hierarchy

These newsgroup posting guidelines apply only to the co.*
hierarchy, and will remain in force until such time as a committee
is formed to assume responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of
the hierarchy.

Introduction:

In Usenet tradition, there are generally only two kinds of
newsgroups - moderated and unmoderated.  The difference
between the two is that anyone can post just about anything they
want to an unmoderated group, whereas nobody can post
anything to a moderated group without the approval of the
moderator.

In the co.* hierarchy, commercial groups will generally be
moderated, but discussion groups will not.  Instead, they will
be _monitored_ by Newsgroup Hosts whose job it is to keep the
groups running smoothly and on topic.  Newsgroup Hosts have
authority to reprimand posters who violate the charter of a
newsgroup or the co.* hierarchy rules, and to place repeat
offenders on the co.* hierarchy Watch List.  But, until
further notice, all 3rd party cancellations will be handled by
the co.* hierarchy administration.

Readers and posters are expected to give their full support to
the Newsgroup Hosts so that the co.* newsgroups don't turn into
cesspools of inappropriate crossposts and flamewars.  But first,
they need to know some of the rules that have been handed
down by the original creators of the Usenet newsgroups. Here
are some of the more important do's and don'ts:

1. Do not post binaries, HTML, vcards, or other non-standard
stuff in the co.* hierarchy.  Usenet is a plain text medium which
was never intended to be an extension of the World Wide Web.
Instead of posting stuff from your website to a newsgroup, post
a pointer telling people where to find your website, and what
they can expect to see.

2. Do not advertise for the sake of advertising, and do not post
Make Money Fast get-rich-quick schemes or chain letters.  It's
OK to tell people about your newsletter or your new website
where that is permitted by a newsgroup's charter, but be careful
not to overdo.  If you want to advertise your business or your
website on a regular basis, you should put that information in
a signature file and attach it to your posts.  A signature file
should be brief, no more than 4-6 lines.

3. Do not crosspost to more than 5 groups, including the co.*
group from which you are posting, and be careful when
crossposting to newsgroups in other hierarchies.  Different
hierarchies have different rules and, when you crosspost to
another hierarchy, your article is subject to those other rules.

4. Check the newsgroups line before responding to an article.
If more than five groups are listed, delete the least appropriate
group(s) until there are only five left.  Adjust follow-ups as well,
if that appears to be necessary.  Then, at the top of your article,
insert something like the following note in brackets:

[newsgroups trimmed -- the co.* hierarchy has a 5G crosspost limit]

5. Do not post or crosspost to moderated groups unless you have
read the charter and understand the moderation rules.  An article
sent to a moderated group will not be posted anywhere until and
unless it is approved by the moderator of the moderated group.

6.  Do not quote an entire message just to respond to one point.
It is better to quote only the part you are responding to, and to cut
everything else from your response.  Also, be careful when
making attributions as to who made the statement you are
responding to.  Most software will insert the attribution lines for
you, but you should always check to be sure they are correct.
Other people will be upset if you make a mistake and put words
in their mouth.

7.  Set your line width at no more than 75 characters.  This allows
an additional five spaces for the quote marks in follow-ups so that
other posters don't have to reformat your articles in order to send
a readable reply.

8. Do not SHOUT at people by posting in ALL CAPS, even if you
are really angry.  Use asterisks (*) or underlines (_) instead to
emphasize words or phrases. It is easier to read "I am really
angry with you" than it is to read "I AM REALLY ANGRY WITH
YOU."

9. Do not post articles in other people's names, not even in jest.
Forgery is taken quite seriously in Usenet, and you could lose
your account.

10. If you insist on munging or faking your email address, be
careful not to create problems for other people.  One poster
thought he had a real cute address to give the address harvesters
- no@spam.com - until he was informed that the domain
"spam.com" belongs to Hormel Foods, and that any mail for "no"
was probably being sent to Hormel's servers.

11.  Do not post private email in the newsgroups without permission
from your correspondent.  When people see their email spread
around, they tend to quickly lose faith in the person who spread it.
If by chance you _do_  accidentally post email to a newsgroup, be
sure to apologize right away.

12. Beware of heated conversations.  Sometimes they turn into
flamewars, which are often very hard to stop.  If you see a flamewar
brewing, try not to get involved.  If you find yourself in strong
disagreement with another poster, ask yourself if it is worth it to
respond.  If your response is likely to start or continue a flamewar,
it might be best to _not_ respond rather than add fuel to the fire.
There is no rule that says you must respond to every article.

Cancellation Policy:

Certain articles may be subject to cancellation, including but not
limited to: Make Money Fast chain letters and pyramid schemes;
binaries in non-binary groups; and obvious "spam" with a
Breidbart Index equal to or greater than 20.  The best way to
avoid such cancellations is to not post these types of articles and
to not "spam" in Usenet.

Except in emergency situations, third-party cancels will be issued
by the co.* hierarchy administration only after obtaining permission
from the original poster and/or his/her site administrator.  In an
emergency situation, as when a newsgroup is flooded with "spew,"
prior consent will not be sought.  In both cases, copies of the cancel
message will be sent to the poster and his site administrator so that
they will know the message was canceled by the co.* hierarchy.

If a poster or service provider feels a cancel was unfair, an appeal
may be posted for discussion in co.config.  The decision will be
made by consensus of the group in co.config, and apologies will be
made to anyone who can show that a cancel was unfair.

Newsgroup Hosts should not attempt to cancel any articles
themselves unless authorized to do so by the co.* hierarchy
administration.

Readers and posters to the co.* newsgroups should not attempt
to cancel any articles but their own.

Suspected forgeries will be reported directly to the originating site.

Unauthorized use of registered domains will be reported directly to
the domain whose name is apparently being misused.

For further information on cancels, see Tim Skirvin's Cancel FAQ
at:  http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/faqs/cancel.html.

Amendments:

These rules may not be amended by the co.* hierarchy maintainer
without full RFD discussion in co.config.  Any person directly
connected with the co.* hierarchy may post an RFD suggesting
amendments to these rules.  The procedure to be followed will be
the same as for a newsgroup proposal -- two weeks minimum
discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully) a
decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting
any votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is
free to propose and adopt its own posting rules.

Approved by consensus in co.config on Friday, May 28, 1999.










---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/3/2002

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#45

Author: harlan bettencourt
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 19:33

93 lines
4345 bytes

On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 08:00:08 -0600, Tom Morgengill
<tmorgen@nonewsguy.com> wrote:

>The Kingfish's suggestion (RFD) is improper.  Anything broken can be
>repaired.   Here is an example of this: 
>
>Kingfish wrote:
>
>>>These rules may not be amended without full RFD discussion in co.config.
>>>Any person may post an RFD suggesting amendments to these rules.  The
>>>procedure to be followed will be the same as for a newsgroup proposal -- two
>>>weeks minimum discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully) a
>>>decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting any
>>>votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>>>propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>>>
>>>Approved by consensus in co.config on   ?????????
>>>
>>>---
>>>
>>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
>>
>And Harlan Bettencourt decided to vote anyway....

Aw nuts, just say I added my consensus, my discusson is that he made a
decent revision we can all live with.

>>Yes vote.
>
>On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 04:04:13 GMT, "Kingfish"
><spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Maraya" <maraya@dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>news:3D4C55A2.7262AB32@dimensional.com...
>>: [snipped]
>>:
>>: 1.  What if no one responds to your proposal?  How many people read this
>>group?
>>: How do you propose to ascertain that you've reached consensus?
>>:
>>
>>feel free to anounce it anywhere.  I have mentioned several times to watch
>>co.config to all ngs in co.*
>>
>This is not usenet protocol. We can't simply make up the rules to suit
>our own individual needs.  If the usenet community does not accept a
>charter as being reasonable, then to create it is a waste of time.
>The proper protocol in itself is important.  Should a complaint be
>lodged and this be brought to the attention of the usenet
>administrator, you will have little support from that administrator in
>enforcing it. 
>>
>>: 2.  Who gets to be on your proposed committee?  How many people make a
>>: committee?  How do we know that all of the people who volunteer aren't
>>actually
>>: *you?*  We don't even know who you are.
>>:
>>I purpose no comittee.  That was part of the origonal charter, if such a
>>comittee is desired then by consensus here it could be formed.
>>
>You need to collect your thoughts more accurately. In your original
>post (suggestion/RFD) you said:
>
>>Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>>propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>
>Now you state that you are proposing no committee? 
>This is why there is specific protocol for creating/changing charters.
>When creating a charter for a non-moderating newsgroup it is important
>to realize that enforcing it is simply not possible.  For that reason,
>most non-moderated group charters are written very loosely and the
>kill file was created.    

The fact is we have a group whose admin resigned but charter
continues. Revising it may be a good thing, why get in the way of
that?

>>: 3.  Get a life.
>>:
>>: Maraya
>>:
>>
>>read the original charter and do some comparison.  It has been posted here
>>recently.
>>
>>
>>---
>>
>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
>

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#47

Author: Kingfish
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:15

272 lines
13223 bytes

This is the *old * charter, revisions will be obviously marked and begin
with -----

*many changes reflect the fact that there is no administration for the co*
groups and allow for any interested party to purpose changes through
consensus and/or vote.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              Posting Rules for the co.* hierarchy

These newsgroup posting guidelines apply only to the co.*
hierarchy, and will remain in force until such time as a committee
is formed to assume responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of
the hierarchy.

Introduction:

In Usenet tradition, there are generally only two kinds of
newsgroups - moderated and unmoderated.  The difference
between the two is that anyone can post just about anything they
want to an unmoderated group, whereas nobody can post
anything to a moderated group without the approval of the
moderator.

-----no changes to this point.

-----below was removed from the proposed-revised charter----
-----becuase no groups (that I am aware of) are--------------------
-----moderated anymore.-------------------------------------------------
-----there is also no administration in place-------------------------
-----and no such watch list----------------------------------------------

In the co.* hierarchy, commercial groups will generally be
moderated, but discussion groups will not.  Instead, they will
be _monitored_ by Newsgroup Hosts whose job it is to keep the
groups running smoothly and on topic.  Newsgroup Hosts have
authority to reprimand posters who violate the charter of a
newsgroup or the co.* hierarchy rules, and to place repeat
offenders on the co.* hierarchy Watch List.  But, until
further notice, all 3rd party cancellations will be handled by
the co.* hierarchy administration.
----above was
removed-------------------------------------------------------------


----origonal below
Readers and posters are expected to give their full support to
the Newsgroup Hosts so that the co.* newsgroups don't turn into
cesspools of inappropriate crossposts and flamewars.  But first,
they need to know some of the rules that have been handed
down by the original creators of the Usenet newsgroups. Here
are some of the more important do's and don'ts:

-----revised
Readers and posters are expected to give their full support to this charter
so that the co.* newsgroups don't turn into cesspools of inappropriate
crossposts and flamewars.  But first, they need to know some of the rules
that have been handed down by the original creators of the Usenet newsgroups
as well as some that have been added by the current users of the co.*
hierarchy. Here are some of the more important do's and don'ts:


---this paragraph remains unchanged.
1. Do not post binaries, HTML, vcards, or other non-standard
stuff in the co.* hierarchy.  Usenet is a plain text medium which
was never intended to be an extension of the World Wide Web.
Instead of posting stuff from your website to a newsgroup, post
a pointer telling people where to find your website, and what
they can expect to see.

---origonal:
2. Do not advertise for the sake of advertising, and do not post
Make Money Fast get-rich-quick schemes or chain letters.  It's
OK to tell people about your newsletter or your new website
where that is permitted by a newsgroup's charter, but be careful
not to overdo.  If you want to advertise your business or your
website on a regular basis, you should put that information in
a signature file and attach it to your posts.  A signature file
should be brief, no more than 4-6 lines.

-----revised:
2. Do not advertise in non ads groups.  If a group has "ads" as part of it's
name, it is ok to advertise in that group; likewise if a group does not have
"ads" in the title of the group, advertising is not permitted in that group.
Do not repost ads from others, allow the authors of an ad to decide on its
proper placement and do not post Make Money Fast get-rich-quick schemes or
chain letters.  Posting ads in non-ads groups will be considered a violation
of the co.* hierarchy charter and you will be reported to your ISP or
news-service and you will lose your account.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
3. Do not crosspost to more than 5 groups, including the co.*
group from which you are posting, and be careful when
crossposting to newsgroups in other hierarchies.  Different
hierarchies have different rules and, when you crosspost to
another hierarchy, your article is subject to those other rules.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
4. Check the newsgroups line before responding to an article.
If more than five groups are listed, delete the least appropriate
group(s) until there are only five left.  Adjust follow-ups as well,
if that appears to be necessary.  Then, at the top of your article,
insert something like the following note in brackets:

[newsgroups trimmed -- the co.* hierarchy has a 5G crosspost limit]

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
5. Do not post or crosspost to moderated groups unless you have
read the charter and understand the moderation rules.  An article
sent to a moderated group will not be posted anywhere until and
unless it is approved by the moderator of the moderated group.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
6.  Do not quote an entire message just to respond to one point.
It is better to quote only the part you are responding to, and to cut
everything else from your response.  Also, be careful when
making attributions as to who made the statement you are
responding to.  Most software will insert the attribution lines for
you, but you should always check to be sure they are correct.
Other people will be upset if you make a mistake and put words
in their mouth.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
7.  Set your line width at no more than 75 characters.  This allows
an additional five spaces for the quote marks in follow-ups so that
other posters don't have to reformat your articles in order to send
a readable reply.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
8. Do not SHOUT at people by posting in ALL CAPS, even if you
are really angry.  Use asterisks (*) or underlines (_) instead to
emphasize words or phrases. It is easier to read "I am really
angry with you" than it is to read "I AM REALLY ANGRY WITH
YOU."

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
9. Do not post articles in other people's names, not even in jest.
Forgery is taken quite seriously in Usenet, and you could lose
your account.


10. If you insist on munging or faking your email address, be
careful not to create problems for other people.  One poster
thought he had a real cute address to give the address harvesters
- no@spam.com - until he was informed that the domain
"spam.com" belongs to Hormel Foods, and that any mail for "no"
was probably being sent to Hormel's servers.

-----this paragraph was added to the revised-proposed charter:
11. "Flood Attacks" or posting mass groups of messages pushes other posts
off of various news servers and amounts to a Denial of Service to other
messages in a group.  Violators will be reported to their ISP and/or
newsgroup/news-service provider.

----this paragraph was labeled 10, is now labeled 11 but is otherwise
unchanged.
11.  Do not post private email in the newsgroups without permission
from your correspondent.  When people see their email spread
around, they tend to quickly lose faith in the person who spread it.
If by chance you _do_  accidentally post email to a newsgroup, be
sure to apologize right away.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
12. Beware of heated conversations.  Sometimes they turn into
flamewars, which are often very hard to stop.  If you see a flamewar
brewing, try not to get involved.  If you find yourself in strong
disagreement with another poster, ask yourself if it is worth it to
respond.  If your response is likely to start or continue a flamewar,
it might be best to _not_ respond rather than add fuel to the fire.
There is no rule that says you must respond to every article.


-----origonal charter:
Cancellation Policy:

Certain articles may be subject to cancellation, including but not
limited to: Make Money Fast chain letters and pyramid schemes;
binaries in non-binary groups; and obvious "spam" with a
Breidbart Index equal to or greater than 20.  The best way to
avoid such cancellations is to not post these types of articles and
to not "spam" in Usenet.

---revised:
Cancellation Policy:

Certain articles may be subject to cancellation, including but not limited
to: Make-Money-Fast chain letters and pyramid schemes; binaries in
non-binary groups; and advertising in groups not designated for advertising
with ".ads" as part of its' name and "flooding".  The best way to avoid such
cancellations is to not post these types of articles and to not "spam" in
Usenet.


----origonal:
Except in emergency situations, third-party cancels will be issued
by the co.* hierarchy administration only after obtaining permission
from the original poster and/or his/her site administrator.  In an
emergency situation, as when a newsgroup is flooded with "spew,"
prior consent will not be sought.  In both cases, copies of the cancel
message will be sent to the poster and his site administrator so that
they will know the message was canceled by the co.* hierarchy.

-----revised due to lack of Admin for co.*:
Third-party cancels will be issued for blatant violations of the posting
guidelines found in the paragraph above

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
If a poster or service provider feels a cancel was unfair, an appeal
may be posted for discussion in co.config.  The decision will be
made by consensus of the group in co.config, and apologies will be
made to anyone who can show that a cancel was unfair.

-----removed due to lack of Admin for co.*:
Newsgroup Hosts should not attempt to cancel any articles
themselves unless authorized to do so by the co.* hierarchy
administration.

----removed due to lack of Admin for co.* spam, ads and floods could be
canceled by users.
Readers and posters to the co.* newsgroups should not attempt
to cancel any articles but their own.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
Suspected forgeries will be reported directly to the originating site.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
Unauthorized use of registered domains will be reported directly to
the domain whose name is apparently being misused.

----origonal:
For further information on cancels, see Tim Skirvin's Cancel FAQ
at:  http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/faqs/cancel.html.

----link removed, it no longer exists.


----origonal:
Amendments:

These rules may not be amended by the co.* hierarchy maintainer
without full RFD discussion in co.config.  Any person directly
connected with the co.* hierarchy may post an RFD suggesting
amendments to these rules.  The procedure to be followed will be
the same as for a newsgroup proposal -- two weeks minimum
discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully) a
decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting
any votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is
free to propose and adopt its own posting rules.


-----revised due to lack of Admin for co.*:
Amendments:

These rules may not be amended without full RFD discussion in co.config.
Any person may post an RFD suggesting amendments to these rules.  The
procedure to be followed will be the same as for a newsgroup proposal -- two
weeks minimum discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully) a
decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting any
votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
propose and adopt its own posting rules







---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/3/2002

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#48

Author: Henrietta K. Thomas
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:53

82 lines
5244 bytes

Pardon me for jumping in here, but I couldn't help but notice
that this proposed charter closely resembles the posting 
rules for the us.* hierarchy, which you may find on the web 
at http://www.panix.com/~kingdon/usenet-us.html


On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 16:00:31 GMT, "Kingfish" <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> 
wrote, in co.config:

>
>"Tom Morgengill" <tmorgen@nonewsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:57cqku0a7qp7ucbq9r2epcrfpdobt13kqk@4ax.com...

<snip>

>: This is not usenet protocol. We can't simply make up the rules to suit
>: our own individual needs.  If the usenet community does not accept a
>: charter as being reasonable, then to create it is a waste of time.
>: The proper protocol in itself is important.  Should a complaint be
>: lodged and this be brought to the attention of the usenet
>: administrator, you will have little support from that administrator in
>: enforcing it.
>
>Please point us to the protocol then.  Without documentation as to *why*
>this is improper, your point is invalid.  The origonal charter for the co.*
>heirarchy provided for it to be changed, in co.config through an RFD. The
>admion for co.* is AWOL and has been for at least 2 years.  Therefore there
>is no admin to issue cancels, to create new newsgroups; and the current
>charter is insufficent to handle to problems that have arisen recently in
>co.general without revision.  

Proper procedure, IMHO, would be to first appoint a new
admin for the co.* hierarchy, spell out his/her official duties,
then review *all* prior hierarchy documents and make any
changes you think are needed.  You can get advice on some
of this in news.admin.hierarchies simply by posting a query
asking what to do when a hierarchy admin disappears.  There
*is* a certain protocol to follow when appointing a new admin
if you want other admins to honor your control messages.

How you appoint the new admin is up to you.  You could do
it by fiat, consensus, or votes.  Whether you have a committee
is also up to you; there is no law that says Usenet hierarchies
must be run by committee.  In fact, the norm is generally to do
things by consensus.  Consensus means that all parties
speaking on the matter are in basic agreement as to what to do.
So it is in your best interest to get as many regular co.* posters
involved as much as possible in this project.

You can also write your own charter and set up your own rules
for the co.* hierarchy without somebody looking over your
shoulder, so long as they are consistent with Usenet policies
as a whole.  Reading what other people have done is a good
idea, but do not blindly copy them.  It is better to adapt good
ideas to your local situation, and drop what doesn't apply.

Somebody might want to go to www.faqs.org and see if there
are any hierarchy documents posted there that might give
you some better ideas as to what to put in your charter.

Finally, take your time to make sure you do it right, and give
everyone a chance to speak.  The groups will continue to
function while you work on this.  The only things you won't
be able to do is issue control messages, cancels, and other
stuff that an admin is expected to do.

Although he may be putting the cart before the horse, Kingfish
is to be commended for starting this discussion, which appears
to be way overdue.

If I can be of any help, let me know.

Henrietta K. Thomas
us.* hierarchy coordinator
hkt69@earthlink.net

Now is a proper time for the charter to be
>brought up to speed - if you dissagree with a particular part of the charter
>as it is proposed, you are welcome to make suggestions or to make additions
>where you see fit - but what I have proposed is in accordance with the co.*
>heirarchy charter as it was written and accepted.  (see the bottom of this
>message for the old charter)

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#49

Author: Tom Morgengill
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 23:13

108 lines
5141 bytes

On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 19:33:45 GMT, harb@nospam.netscape.net (harlan
bettencourt) wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 08:00:08 -0600, Tom Morgengill
><tmorgen@nonewsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>The Kingfish's suggestion (RFD) is improper.  Anything broken can be
>>repaired.   Here is an example of this: 
>>
>>Kingfish wrote:
>>
>>>>These rules may not be amended without full RFD discussion in co.config.
>>>>Any person may post an RFD suggesting amendments to these rules.  The
>>>>procedure to be followed will be the same as for a newsgroup proposal -- two
>>>>weeks minimum discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully) a
>>>>decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting any
>>>>votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>>>>propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>>>>
>>>>Approved by consensus in co.config on   ?????????
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>
>>>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>>>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
>>>
>>And Harlan Bettencourt decided to vote anyway....
>
>Aw nuts, just say I added my consensus, my discusson is that he made a
>decent revision we can all live with.

I am not disagreeing with the proposed changes. However any changes
should be done in accordance with usenet protocol.  See my reply to
Kingfish. 

>>>Yes vote.
>>
>>On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 04:04:13 GMT, "Kingfish"
>><spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Maraya" <maraya@dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3D4C55A2.7262AB32@dimensional.com...
>>>: [snipped]
>>>:
>>>: 1.  What if no one responds to your proposal?  How many people read this
>>>group?
>>>: How do you propose to ascertain that you've reached consensus?
>>>:
>>>
>>>feel free to anounce it anywhere.  I have mentioned several times to watch
>>>co.config to all ngs in co.*
>>>
>>This is not usenet protocol. We can't simply make up the rules to suit
>>our own individual needs.  If the usenet community does not accept a
>>charter as being reasonable, then to create it is a waste of time.
>>The proper protocol in itself is important.  Should a complaint be
>>lodged and this be brought to the attention of the usenet
>>administrator, you will have little support from that administrator in
>>enforcing it. 
>>>
>>>: 2.  Who gets to be on your proposed committee?  How many people make a
>>>: committee?  How do we know that all of the people who volunteer aren't
>>>actually
>>>: *you?*  We don't even know who you are.
>>>:
>>>I purpose no comittee.  That was part of the origonal charter, if such a
>>>comittee is desired then by consensus here it could be formed.
>>>
>>You need to collect your thoughts more accurately. In your original
>>post (suggestion/RFD) you said:
>>
>>>Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>>>propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>>
>>Now you state that you are proposing no committee? 
>>This is why there is specific protocol for creating/changing charters.
>>When creating a charter for a non-moderating newsgroup it is important
>>to realize that enforcing it is simply not possible.  For that reason,
>>most non-moderated group charters are written very loosely and the
>>kill file was created.    
>
>The fact is we have a group whose admin resigned but charter
>continues. Revising it may be a good thing, why get in the way of
>that?

See the above. What I would like to do is cover all the bases.  You
and I disagree with what is and what is not an ad.  That's OK too,
unless we end up flaming the group with our opinions.  An ad, defined
should be any text that offers a product or service and that should be
outlined or the group is certain to be flamed with this issue.   .
Regards,
Tom 

>>>: 3.  Get a life.
>>>:
>>>: Maraya
>>>:
>>>
>>>read the original charter and do some comparison.  It has been posted here
>>>recently.
>>>
>>>
>>>---
>>>
>>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
>>

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#52

Author: tmorgen
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 03:19

306 lines
14456 bytes

On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 16:00:31 GMT, "Kingfish"
<spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Tom Morgengill" <tmorgen@nonewsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:57cqku0a7qp7ucbq9r2epcrfpdobt13kqk@4ax.com...
>: The Kingfish's suggestion (RFD) is improper.  Anything broken can be
>: repaired.   Here is an example of this:
>:
>: Kingfish wrote:
>:
>: >>These rules may not be amended without full RFD discussion in co.config.
>: >>Any person may post an RFD suggesting amendments to these rules.  The
>: >>procedure to be followed will be the same as for a newsgroup proposal --
>two
>: >>weeks minimum discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully)
>a
>: >>decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting any
>: >>votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>: >>propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>: >>
>: >>Approved by consensus in co.config on   ?????????
>: >>
>: >>---
>: >>
>: >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>: >>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
>: >
>: And Harlan Bettencourt decided to vote anyway....
>:
>: >Yes vote.
>:
>: On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 04:04:13 GMT, "Kingfish"
>: <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
>:
>: >
>: >"Maraya" <maraya@dimensional.com> wrote in message
>: >news:3D4C55A2.7262AB32@dimensional.com...
>: >: [snipped]
>: >:
>: >: 1.  What if no one responds to your proposal?  How many people read
>this
>: >group?
>: >: How do you propose to ascertain that you've reached consensus?
>: >:
>: >
>: >feel free to anounce it anywhere.  I have mentioned several times to
>watch
>: >co.config to all ngs in co.*
>: >
>: This is not usenet protocol. We can't simply make up the rules to suit
>: our own individual needs.  If the usenet community does not accept a
>: charter as being reasonable, then to create it is a waste of time.
>: The proper protocol in itself is important.  Should a complaint be
>: lodged and this be brought to the attention of the usenet
>: administrator, you will have little support from that administrator in
>: enforcing it.
>
>Please point us to the protocol then.  Without documentation as to *why*
>this is improper, your point is invalid.  The origonal charter for the co.*
>heirarchy provided for it to be changed, in co.config through an RFD. The
>admion for co.* is AWOL and has been for at least 2 years.  Therefore there
>is no admin to issue cancels, to create new newsgroups; and the current
>charter is insufficent to handle to problems that have arisen recently in
>co.general without revision.  Now is a proper time for the charter to be
>brought up to speed - if you dissagree with a particular part of the charter
>as it is proposed, you are welcome to make suggestions or to make additions
>where you see fit - but what I have proposed is in accordance with the co.*
>heirarchy charter as it was written and accepted.  (see the bottom of this
>message for the old charter)
>
Your RFD posted in co.config is attempting to create a charter for all
co. newsgroups.  This is not proper.  You need to write a new charter
for each group, specifically to that group.  If the problem is with
co.general then co.general needs the charter change. 
>
>
>: >
>: >: 2.  Who gets to be on your proposed committee?  How many people make a
>: >: committee?  How do we know that all of the people who volunteer aren't
>: >actually
>: >: *you?*  We don't even know who you are.
>: >:
>: >I purpose no comittee.  That was part of the origonal charter, if such a
>: >comittee is desired then by consensus here it could be formed.
>: >
>: You need to collect your thoughts more accurately. In your original
>: post (suggestion/RFD) you said:
>:
>: >Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>: >propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>:
>: Now you state that you are proposing no committee?
>: This is why there is specific protocol for creating/changing charters.
>: When creating a charter for a non-moderating newsgroup it is important
>: to realize that enforcing it is simply not possible.  For that reason,
>: most non-moderated group charters are written very loosely and the
>: kill file was created.
>
>This was in the origonal charter, that was posted here in this group.  This
>leaves the option open for such a comittee.
>
Your post first indicated there would be a committee. Your follow up
to Maraya indicated you did not suggest a committee.  Now you are
saying that the charter is open for such a committee. Without further
confusion then could you perhaps answer Maraya's question? 
>
>: >: 3.  Get a life.
>: >:
>: >: Maraya
>: >:
>: >
>: >read the original charter and do some comparison.  It has been posted
>here
>: >recently.
>: >
>: >
>: >---
>: >
>: >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>: >Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
>:
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>-------old but still in effect charter follows--------
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>              Posting Rules for the co.* hierarchy
>
>These newsgroup posting guidelines apply only to the co.*
>hierarchy, and will remain in force until such time as a committee
>is formed to assume responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of
>the hierarchy.
>
>Introduction:
>
>In Usenet tradition, there are generally only two kinds of
>newsgroups - moderated and unmoderated.  The difference
>between the two is that anyone can post just about anything they
>want to an unmoderated group, whereas nobody can post
>anything to a moderated group without the approval of the
>moderator.
>
>In the co.* hierarchy, commercial groups will generally be
>moderated, but discussion groups will not.  Instead, they will
>be _monitored_ by Newsgroup Hosts whose job it is to keep the
>groups running smoothly and on topic.  Newsgroup Hosts have
>authority to reprimand posters who violate the charter of a
>newsgroup or the co.* hierarchy rules, and to place repeat
>offenders on the co.* hierarchy Watch List.  But, until
>further notice, all 3rd party cancellations will be handled by
>the co.* hierarchy administration.
>
>Readers and posters are expected to give their full support to
>the Newsgroup Hosts so that the co.* newsgroups don't turn into
>cesspools of inappropriate crossposts and flamewars.  But first,
>they need to know some of the rules that have been handed
>down by the original creators of the Usenet newsgroups. Here
>are some of the more important do's and don'ts:
>
>1. Do not post binaries, HTML, vcards, or other non-standard
>stuff in the co.* hierarchy.  Usenet is a plain text medium which
>was never intended to be an extension of the World Wide Web.
>Instead of posting stuff from your website to a newsgroup, post
>a pointer telling people where to find your website, and what
>they can expect to see.
>
>2. Do not advertise for the sake of advertising, and do not post
>Make Money Fast get-rich-quick schemes or chain letters.  It's
>OK to tell people about your newsletter or your new website
>where that is permitted by a newsgroup's charter, but be careful
>not to overdo.  If you want to advertise your business or your
>website on a regular basis, you should put that information in
>a signature file and attach it to your posts.  A signature file
>should be brief, no more than 4-6 lines.
>
>3. Do not crosspost to more than 5 groups, including the co.*
>group from which you are posting, and be careful when
>crossposting to newsgroups in other hierarchies.  Different
>hierarchies have different rules and, when you crosspost to
>another hierarchy, your article is subject to those other rules.
>
>4. Check the newsgroups line before responding to an article.
>If more than five groups are listed, delete the least appropriate
>group(s) until there are only five left.  Adjust follow-ups as well,
>if that appears to be necessary.  Then, at the top of your article,
>insert something like the following note in brackets:
>
>[newsgroups trimmed -- the co.* hierarchy has a 5G crosspost limit]
>
>5. Do not post or crosspost to moderated groups unless you have
>read the charter and understand the moderation rules.  An article
>sent to a moderated group will not be posted anywhere until and
>unless it is approved by the moderator of the moderated group.
>
>6.  Do not quote an entire message just to respond to one point.
>It is better to quote only the part you are responding to, and to cut
>everything else from your response.  Also, be careful when
>making attributions as to who made the statement you are
>responding to.  Most software will insert the attribution lines for
>you, but you should always check to be sure they are correct.
>Other people will be upset if you make a mistake and put words
>in their mouth.
>
>7.  Set your line width at no more than 75 characters.  This allows
>an additional five spaces for the quote marks in follow-ups so that
>other posters don't have to reformat your articles in order to send
>a readable reply.
>
>8. Do not SHOUT at people by posting in ALL CAPS, even if you
>are really angry.  Use asterisks (*) or underlines (_) instead to
>emphasize words or phrases. It is easier to read "I am really
>angry with you" than it is to read "I AM REALLY ANGRY WITH
>YOU."
>
>9. Do not post articles in other people's names, not even in jest.
>Forgery is taken quite seriously in Usenet, and you could lose
>your account.
>
>10. If you insist on munging or faking your email address, be
>careful not to create problems for other people.  One poster
>thought he had a real cute address to give the address harvesters
>- no@spam.com - until he was informed that the domain
>"spam.com" belongs to Hormel Foods, and that any mail for "no"
>was probably being sent to Hormel's servers.
>
>11.  Do not post private email in the newsgroups without permission
>from your correspondent.  When people see their email spread
>around, they tend to quickly lose faith in the person who spread it.
>If by chance you _do_  accidentally post email to a newsgroup, be
>sure to apologize right away.
>
>12. Beware of heated conversations.  Sometimes they turn into
>flamewars, which are often very hard to stop.  If you see a flamewar
>brewing, try not to get involved.  If you find yourself in strong
>disagreement with another poster, ask yourself if it is worth it to
>respond.  If your response is likely to start or continue a flamewar,
>it might be best to _not_ respond rather than add fuel to the fire.
>There is no rule that says you must respond to every article.
>
>Cancellation Policy:
>
>Certain articles may be subject to cancellation, including but not
>limited to: Make Money Fast chain letters and pyramid schemes;
>binaries in non-binary groups; and obvious "spam" with a
>Breidbart Index equal to or greater than 20.  The best way to
>avoid such cancellations is to not post these types of articles and
>to not "spam" in Usenet.
>
>Except in emergency situations, third-party cancels will be issued
>by the co.* hierarchy administration only after obtaining permission
>from the original poster and/or his/her site administrator.  In an
>emergency situation, as when a newsgroup is flooded with "spew,"
>prior consent will not be sought.  In both cases, copies of the cancel
>message will be sent to the poster and his site administrator so that
>they will know the message was canceled by the co.* hierarchy.
>
>If a poster or service provider feels a cancel was unfair, an appeal
>may be posted for discussion in co.config.  The decision will be
>made by consensus of the group in co.config, and apologies will be
>made to anyone who can show that a cancel was unfair.
>
>Newsgroup Hosts should not attempt to cancel any articles
>themselves unless authorized to do so by the co.* hierarchy
>administration.
>
>Readers and posters to the co.* newsgroups should not attempt
>to cancel any articles but their own.
>
>Suspected forgeries will be reported directly to the originating site.
>
>Unauthorized use of registered domains will be reported directly to
>the domain whose name is apparently being misused.
>
>For further information on cancels, see Tim Skirvin's Cancel FAQ
>at:  http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/faqs/cancel.html.
>
>Amendments:
>
>These rules may not be amended by the co.* hierarchy maintainer
>without full RFD discussion in co.config.  Any person directly
>connected with the co.* hierarchy may post an RFD suggesting
>amendments to these rules.  The procedure to be followed will be
>the same as for a newsgroup proposal -- two weeks minimum
>discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully) a
>decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting
>any votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is
>free to propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>
>Approved by consensus in co.config on Friday, May 28, 1999.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/3/2002

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#51

Author: Henrietta K. Thomas
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 03:43

31 lines
2626 bytes

On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:53:15 GMT, Henrietta K. Thomas <hkt69@earthlink.net>
wrote, in co.config:

<SNIP>

>Somebody might want to go to www.faqs.org and see if there
>are any hierarchy documents posted there that might give
>you some better ideas as to what to put in your charter.

Just for fun, I looked in Google and found the co.* hierarchy
FAQ at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=39921379.97573506%40news-den.bbnow.net&output=gplain

The Charter you are trying to amend is the Charter for co.config,
which you will find in Google at
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=O_zg4.397%24M4.49918%40den-news1.rmi.net&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dco.config

You should start with the FAQ first, and decide what changes need
to be made.  Then you can deal with the co.config charter and anything
else you think you need to do.

I note that Kingfish has already posted a query to news.admin.hierarchies.
Good.  I will follow the discussion in both groups.

Best of luch on this project.

Henrietta
-- 
Welcome to Usenet. Fasten your seat belts. 
You're in for a bumpy ride.   
  -- Dave Ratcliffe, 6/6/01, in us.config

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#53

Author: Kingfish
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 04:56

405 lines
18668 bytes

"tmorgen@nonewsguy.com" <Tom Morgengill> wrote in message
news:6drrkuk6popg0ioekkfnbvj8simrdvv142@4ax.com...
: On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 16:00:31 GMT, "Kingfish"
: <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
: >
: >"Tom Morgengill" <tmorgen@nonewsguy.com> wrote in message
: >news:57cqku0a7qp7ucbq9r2epcrfpdobt13kqk@4ax.com...
: >: The Kingfish's suggestion (RFD) is improper.  Anything broken can be
: >: repaired.   Here is an example of this:
: >:
: >: Kingfish wrote:
: >:
: >: >>These rules may not be amended without full RFD discussion in
co.config.
: >: >>Any person may post an RFD suggesting amendments to these rules.  The
: >: >>procedure to be followed will be the same as for a newsgroup
proposal --
: >two
: >: >>weeks minimum discussion, possibly extended twice, and then
(hopefully)
: >a
: >: >>decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting
any
: >: >>votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
: >: >>propose and adopt its own posting rules.
: >: >>
: >: >>Approved by consensus in co.config on   ?????????
: >: >>
: >: >>---
: >: >>
: >: >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
: >: >>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
: >: >
: >: And Harlan Bettencourt decided to vote anyway....
: >:
: >: >Yes vote.
: >:
: >: On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 04:04:13 GMT, "Kingfish"
: >: <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >:
: >: >
: >: >"Maraya" <maraya@dimensional.com> wrote in message
: >: >news:3D4C55A2.7262AB32@dimensional.com...
: >: >: [snipped]
: >: >:
: >: >: 1.  What if no one responds to your proposal?  How many people read
: >this
: >: >group?
: >: >: How do you propose to ascertain that you've reached consensus?
: >: >:
: >: >
: >: >feel free to anounce it anywhere.  I have mentioned several times to
: >watch
: >: >co.config to all ngs in co.*
: >: >
: >: This is not usenet protocol. We can't simply make up the rules to suit
: >: our own individual needs.  If the usenet community does not accept a
: >: charter as being reasonable, then to create it is a waste of time.
: >: The proper protocol in itself is important.  Should a complaint be
: >: lodged and this be brought to the attention of the usenet
: >: administrator, you will have little support from that administrator in
: >: enforcing it.
: >
: >Please point us to the protocol then.  Without documentation as to *why*
: >this is improper, your point is invalid.  The origonal charter for the
co.*
: >heirarchy provided for it to be changed, in co.config through an RFD. The
: >admion for co.* is AWOL and has been for at least 2 years.  Therefore
there
: >is no admin to issue cancels, to create new newsgroups; and the current
: >charter is insufficent to handle to problems that have arisen recently in
: >co.general without revision.  Now is a proper time for the charter to be
: >brought up to speed - if you dissagree with a particular part of the
charter
: >as it is proposed, you are welcome to make suggestions or to make
additions
: >where you see fit - but what I have proposed is in accordance with the
co.*
: >heirarchy charter as it was written and accepted.  (see the bottom of
this
: >message for the old charter)
: >
: Your RFD posted in co.config is attempting to create a charter for all
: co. newsgroups.  This is not proper.  You need to write a new charter
: for each group, specifically to that group.  If the problem is with
: co.general then co.general needs the charter change.
: >
: >
: >: >
: >: >: 2.  Who gets to be on your proposed committee?  How many people make
a
: >: >: committee?  How do we know that all of the people who volunteer
aren't
: >: >actually
: >: >: *you?*  We don't even know who you are.
: >: >:
: >: >I purpose no comittee.  That was part of the origonal charter, if such
a
: >: >comittee is desired then by consensus here it could be formed.
: >: >
: >: You need to collect your thoughts more accurately. In your original
: >: post (suggestion/RFD) you said:
: >:
: >: >Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
: >: >propose and adopt its own posting rules.
: >:
: >: Now you state that you are proposing no committee?
: >: This is why there is specific protocol for creating/changing charters.
: >: When creating a charter for a non-moderating newsgroup it is important
: >: to realize that enforcing it is simply not possible.  For that reason,
: >: most non-moderated group charters are written very loosely and the
: >: kill file was created.
: >
: >This was in the origonal charter, that was posted here in this group.
This
: >leaves the option open for such a comittee.
: >
: Your post first indicated there would be a committee. Your follow up
: to Maraya indicated you did not suggest a committee.  Now you are
: saying that the charter is open for such a committee. Without further
: confusion then could you perhaps answer Maraya's question?
<snip>

please read on , I will place it here, even though this has already been
answered.  The revised charter allows for such a committee to be formed just
as the original charter did...

see below:

This is the *old * charter, revisions will be obviously marked and begin
with -----

*many changes reflect the fact that there is no administration for the co*
groups and allow for any interested party to purpose changes through
consensus and/or vote.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              Posting Rules for the co.* hierarchy

These newsgroup posting guidelines apply only to the co.*
hierarchy, and will remain in force until such time as a committee
is formed to assume responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of
the hierarchy.

Introduction:

In Usenet tradition, there are generally only two kinds of
newsgroups - moderated and unmoderated.  The difference
between the two is that anyone can post just about anything they
want to an unmoderated group, whereas nobody can post
anything to a moderated group without the approval of the
moderator.

-----no changes to this point.

-----below was removed from the proposed-revised charter----
-----because no groups (that I am aware of) are--------------------
-----moderated anymore.-------------------------------------------------
-----there is also no administration in place-------------------------
-----and no such watch list----------------------------------------------

In the co.* hierarchy, commercial groups will generally be
moderated, but discussion groups will not.  Instead, they will
be _monitored_ by Newsgroup Hosts whose job it is to keep the
groups running smoothly and on topic.  Newsgroup Hosts have
authority to reprimand posters who violate the charter of a
newsgroup or the co.* hierarchy rules, and to place repeat
offenders on the co.* hierarchy Watch List.  But, until
further notice, all 3rd party cancellations will be handled by
the co.* hierarchy administration.
----above was
removed-------------------------------------------------------------


----original below
Readers and posters are expected to give their full support to
the Newsgroup Hosts so that the co.* newsgroups don't turn into
cesspools of inappropriate crossposts and flamewars.  But first,
they need to know some of the rules that have been handed
down by the original creators of the Usenet newsgroups. Here
are some of the more important do's and don'ts:

-----revised
Readers and posters are expected to give their full support to this charter
so that the co.* newsgroups don't turn into cesspools of inappropriate
crossposts and flamewars.  But first, they need to know some of the rules
that have been handed down by the original creators of the Usenet newsgroups
as well as some that have been added by the current users of the co.*
hierarchy. Here are some of the more important do's and don'ts:


---this paragraph remains unchanged.
1. Do not post binaries, HTML, vcards, or other non-standard
stuff in the co.* hierarchy.  Usenet is a plain text medium which
was never intended to be an extension of the World Wide Web.
Instead of posting stuff from your website to a newsgroup, post
a pointer telling people where to find your website, and what
they can expect to see.

---original:
2. Do not advertise for the sake of advertising, and do not post
Make Money Fast get-rich-quick schemes or chain letters.  It's
OK to tell people about your newsletter or your new website
where that is permitted by a newsgroup's charter, but be careful
not to overdo.  If you want to advertise your business or your
website on a regular basis, you should put that information in
a signature file and attach it to your posts.  A signature file
should be brief, no more than 4-6 lines.

-----revised:
2. Do not advertise in non ads groups.  If a group has "ads" as part of it's
name, it is ok to advertise in that group; likewise if a group does not have
"ads" in the title of the group, advertising is not permitted in that group.
Do not repost ads from others, allow the authors of an ad to decide on its
proper placement and do not post Make Money Fast get-rich-quick schemes or
chain letters.  Posting ads in non-ads groups will be considered a violation
of the co.* hierarchy charter and you will be reported to your ISP or
news-service and you will lose your account.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
3. Do not crosspost to more than 5 groups, including the co.*
group from which you are posting, and be careful when
crossposting to newsgroups in other hierarchies.  Different
hierarchies have different rules and, when you crosspost to
another hierarchy, your article is subject to those other rules.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
4. Check the newsgroups line before responding to an article.
If more than five groups are listed, delete the least appropriate
group(s) until there are only five left.  Adjust follow-ups as well,
if that appears to be necessary.  Then, at the top of your article,
insert something like the following note in brackets:

[newsgroups trimmed -- the co.* hierarchy has a 5G crosspost limit]

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
5. Do not post or crosspost to moderated groups unless you have
read the charter and understand the moderation rules.  An article
sent to a moderated group will not be posted anywhere until and
unless it is approved by the moderator of the moderated group.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
6.  Do not quote an entire message just to respond to one point.
It is better to quote only the part you are responding to, and to cut
everything else from your response.  Also, be careful when
making attributions as to who made the statement you are
responding to.  Most software will insert the attribution lines for
you, but you should always check to be sure they are correct.
Other people will be upset if you make a mistake and put words
in their mouth.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
7.  Set your line width at no more than 75 characters.  This allows
an additional five spaces for the quote marks in follow-ups so that
other posters don't have to reformat your articles in order to send
a readable reply.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
8. Do not SHOUT at people by posting in ALL CAPS, even if you
are really angry.  Use asterisks (*) or underlines (_) instead to
emphasize words or phrases. It is easier to read "I am really
angry with you" than it is to read "I AM REALLY ANGRY WITH
YOU."

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
9. Do not post articles in other people's names, not even in jest.
Forgery is taken quite seriously in Usenet, and you could lose
your account.


10. If you insist on munging or faking your email address, be
careful not to create problems for other people.  One poster
thought he had a real cute address to give the address harvesters
- no@spam.com - until he was informed that the domain
"spam.com" belongs to Hormel Foods, and that any mail for "no"
was probably being sent to Hormel's servers.

-----this paragraph was added to the revised-proposed charter:
11. "Flood Attacks" or posting mass groups of messages pushes other posts
off of various news servers and amounts to a Denial of Service to other
messages in a group.  Violators will be reported to their ISP and/or
newsgroup/news-service provider.

----this paragraph was labeled 10, is now labeled 11 but is otherwise
unchanged.
11.  Do not post private email in the newsgroups without permission
from your correspondent.  When people see their email spread
around, they tend to quickly lose faith in the person who spread it.
If by chance you _do_  accidentally post email to a newsgroup, be
sure to apologize right away.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
12. Beware of heated conversations.  Sometimes they turn into
flamewars, which are often very hard to stop.  If you see a flamewar
brewing, try not to get involved.  If you find yourself in strong
disagreement with another poster, ask yourself if it is worth it to
respond.  If your response is likely to start or continue a flamewar,
it might be best to _not_ respond rather than add fuel to the fire.
There is no rule that says you must respond to every article.


-----original charter:
Cancellation Policy:

Certain articles may be subject to cancellation, including but not
limited to: Make Money Fast chain letters and pyramid schemes;
binaries in non-binary groups; and obvious "spam" with a
Breidbart Index equal to or greater than 20.  The best way to
avoid such cancellations is to not post these types of articles and
to not "spam" in Usenet.

---revised:
Cancellation Policy:

Certain articles may be subject to cancellation, including but not limited
to: Make-Money-Fast chain letters and pyramid schemes; binaries in
non-binary groups; and advertising in groups not designated for advertising
with ".ads" as part of its' name and "flooding".  The best way to avoid such
cancellations is to not post these types of articles and to not "spam" in
Usenet.


----original:
Except in emergency situations, third-party cancels will be issued
by the co.* hierarchy administration only after obtaining permission
from the original poster and/or his/her site administrator.  In an
emergency situation, as when a newsgroup is flooded with "spew,"
prior consent will not be sought.  In both cases, copies of the cancel
message will be sent to the poster and his site administrator so that
they will know the message was canceled by the co.* hierarchy.

-----revised due to lack of Admin for co.*:
Third-party cancels will be issued for blatant violations of the posting
guidelines found in the paragraph above

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
If a poster or service provider feels a cancel was unfair, an appeal
may be posted for discussion in co.config.  The decision will be
made by consensus of the group in co.config, and apologies will be
made to anyone who can show that a cancel was unfair.

-----removed due to lack of Admin for co.*:
Newsgroup Hosts should not attempt to cancel any articles
themselves unless authorized to do so by the co.* hierarchy
administration.

----removed due to lack of Admin for co.* spam, ads and floods could be
canceled by users.
Readers and posters to the co.* newsgroups should not attempt
to cancel any articles but their own.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
Suspected forgeries will be reported directly to the originating site.

---this paragraph remains unchanged.
Unauthorized use of registered domains will be reported directly to
the domain whose name is apparently being misused.

----original:
For further information on cancels, see Tim Skirvin's Cancel FAQ
at:  http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/faqs/cancel.html.

----link removed, it no longer exists.


----original:
Amendments:

These rules may not be amended by the co.* hierarchy maintainer
without full RFD discussion in co.config.  Any person directly
connected with the co.* hierarchy may post an RFD suggesting
amendments to these rules.  The procedure to be followed will be
the same as for a newsgroup proposal -- two weeks minimum
discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully) a
decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting
any votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is
free to propose and adopt its own posting rules.


-----revised due to lack of Admin for co.*:
Amendments:

These rules may not be amended without full RFD discussion in co.config.
Any person may post an RFD suggesting amendments to these rules.  The
procedure to be followed will be the same as for a newsgroup proposal -- two
weeks minimum discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully) a
decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting any
votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
propose and adopt its own posting rules









---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#55

Author: harlan bettencourt
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 05:21

167 lines
7398 bytes

On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 17:13:26 -0600, Tom Morgengill
<tmorgen@nonewsguy.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 19:33:45 GMT, harb@nospam.netscape.net (harlan
>bettencourt) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 08:00:08 -0600, Tom Morgengill
>><tmorgen@nonewsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The Kingfish's suggestion (RFD) is improper.  Anything broken can be
>>>repaired.   Here is an example of this: 
>>>
>>>Kingfish wrote:
>>>
>>>>>These rules may not be amended without full RFD discussion in co.config.
>>>>>Any person may post an RFD suggesting amendments to these rules.  The
>>>>>procedure to be followed will be the same as for a newsgroup proposal -- two
>>>>>weeks minimum discussion, possibly extended twice, and then (hopefully) a
>>>>>decision will be made by consensus without the need for conducting any
>>>>>votes. Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>>>>>propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>>>>>
>>>>>Approved by consensus in co.config on   ?????????
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>
>>>>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>>>>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
>>>>
>>>And Harlan Bettencourt decided to vote anyway....
>>
>>Aw nuts, just say I added my consensus, my discusson is that he made a
>>decent revision we can all live with.
>
>I am not disagreeing with the proposed changes. However any changes
>should be done in accordance with usenet protocol.  See my reply to
>Kingfish. 

I did and I read Henrietta's too. It seems clunky to have a separate
charter for each group when most are pretty similar, ads, discussion,
or politics. The old system had a brief explanation of the purpose for
each group and the general charter, simple looks better to me.

>>>>Yes vote.
>>>
>>>On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 04:04:13 GMT, "Kingfish"
>>><spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Maraya" <maraya@dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:3D4C55A2.7262AB32@dimensional.com...
>>>>: [snipped]
>>>>:
>>>>: 1.  What if no one responds to your proposal?  How many people read this
>>>>group?
>>>>: How do you propose to ascertain that you've reached consensus?
>>>>:
>>>>
>>>>feel free to anounce it anywhere.  I have mentioned several times to watch
>>>>co.config to all ngs in co.*
>>>>
>>>This is not usenet protocol. We can't simply make up the rules to suit
>>>our own individual needs.  If the usenet community does not accept a
>>>charter as being reasonable, then to create it is a waste of time.
>>>The proper protocol in itself is important.  Should a complaint be
>>>lodged and this be brought to the attention of the usenet
>>>administrator, you will have little support from that administrator in
>>>enforcing it. 
>>>>
>>>>: 2.  Who gets to be on your proposed committee?  How many people make a
>>>>: committee?  How do we know that all of the people who volunteer aren't
>>>>actually
>>>>: *you?*  We don't even know who you are.
>>>>:
>>>>I purpose no comittee.  That was part of the origonal charter, if such a
>>>>comittee is desired then by consensus here it could be formed.
>>>>
>>>You need to collect your thoughts more accurately. In your original
>>>post (suggestion/RFD) you said:
>>>
>>>>Once a hierarchy committee is formed, the committee is free to
>>>>propose and adopt its own posting rules.
>>>
>>>Now you state that you are proposing no committee? 
>>>This is why there is specific protocol for creating/changing charters.
>>>When creating a charter for a non-moderating newsgroup it is important
>>>to realize that enforcing it is simply not possible.  For that reason,
>>>most non-moderated group charters are written very loosely and the
>>>kill file was created.    
>>
>>The fact is we have a group whose admin resigned but charter
>>continues. Revising it may be a good thing, why get in the way of
>>that?
>
>See the above. What I would like to do is cover all the bases.  You
>and I disagree with what is and what is not an ad.  That's OK too,
>unless we end up flaming the group with our opinions.  An ad, defined
>should be any text that offers a product or service and that should be
>outlined or the group is certain to be flamed with this issue.   .
>Regards,
>Tom 

So if we disagree on that shouldn't we get some common and accepted
definition. Like I said in another post, is it an add if the red cross
solicits funds in a discussion group, what about me? Isn't either
awful close to a chain letter?

So if I look up ad, here's a few possibles I get.

http://www.marketingterms.com/dictionary/text_ad/

"text ad
Definition
Advertisement using text-based hyperlinks.
Information
Text-based ads, although common in email, have been dominated on the
Web by their graphical-based counterparts.
While lacking some of the advantages of graphical ads, text-based ads
have some powerful advantages of their own. They download almost
instantly and are not affected by ad blocking software."

(we might want something on hypertext in it)

http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?129

"advertising
Description or presentation of a product, idea, or organization, in
order to induce individuals to buy, support, or approve of it. "

(this might cover political solicitations- differnt from opinions)

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=advertisement+

"Main Entry: ad�ver�tise�ment  
Pronunciation: "ad-v&r-'tIz-m&nt; &d-'v&r-t&z-m&nt, -t&-sm&nt
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the act or process of advertising
2 : a public notice; especially : one published in the press or
broadcast over the air "

(this one don't work - too vague)

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=advertisement

"ad�ver�tise�ment   Pronunciation Key  (dvr-tzmnt, d-v�rts-, -tz-)
n. 
The act of advertising. 
A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in the print,
broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public attention
or patronage. 

(that one is pretty good)

advertisement

n : a public promotion of some product or service" 

( less wordy, idea is ok)

So you think we might just put all of these together to come up with a
good definition that don't turn the groups into charity commercial
sites or html link dens?

Give it some thought,

harlan

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

#56

Author: tmorgen
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 23:48

50 lines
3217 bytes

Thanks for posting this which makes the matter of the charter and any
revisions more clear.   The only part of this that should be addressed
is: 
-----revised:
2. Do not advertise in non ads groups.  If a group has "ads" as part
of it's
name, it is ok to advertise in that group; likewise if a group does
not have
"ads" in the title of the group, advertising is not permitted in that
group.
Do not repost ads from others, allow the authors of an ad to decide on
its
proper placement and do not post Make Money Fast get-rich-quick
schemes or
chain letters.  Posting ads in non-ads groups will be considered a
violation
of the co.* hierarchy charter and you will be reported to your ISP or
news-service and you will lose your account.

This is too vague.  What constitutes an ad?  To advertise means to
solicit a product or service for the consideration of payment.  When
we advertise for a penpal, we are asking for neither a product or a
service. That would apply to those asking for donations for causes 
that are worthwhile to those asking for the donations as well as for
those seeking anything outside of personal financial gain.  There 
should be several methods of wording this,  "product and service"
would come to mind for the purposes of the groups' charters. 

An apology is due from myself to you and the group.  I had assumed
that the state specific groups followed some kind of protocol.  They
do not and are free to run their groups any way they wish.   I do wish
you well in this endeavor. 

Sincerely,
Tom

On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:15:06 GMT, "Kingfish"
<spam_trap_void@yahoo.com> wrote:

>-----revised:
>2. Do not advertise in non ads groups.  If a group has "ads" as part of it's
>name, it is ok to advertise in that group; likewise if a group does not have
>"ads" in the title of the group, advertising is not permitted in that group.
>Do not repost ads from others, allow the authors of an ad to decide on its
>proper placement and do not post Make Money Fast get-rich-quick schemes or
>chain letters.  Posting ads in non-ads groups will be considered a violation
>of the co.* hierarchy charter and you will be reported to your ISP or
>news-service and you will lose your account.

🚀 go-pugleaf

Thread View: co.config

RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Re: RFD: Proposed Revision to co.* Charter

Thread Navigation