Subject: Re: #1300 was Admin: Resolution of WG

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 12:52:48 -0700 (PDT)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>I've seen mailing lists gatewayed to Netnews where the "moderator" was set 
>to be the mailing list - the result was that all messages posted to the 
>newsgroup were sent to the mailing list, and eventually came back to the 
>newsgroup. No human moderator anywhere in sight.

The moderator was the person who set up that configuration; and as I 
said in the suggested text: some moderators have implemented automated 
systems. You've just provided one example. The fact that you don't see him
on a daily basis does not mean he does not exist. I don't see you on a 
daily basis; do YOU not exist?

>This document shouldn't try to mandate a human in the loop.

Non-sequitor. Nothing in my suggested text mandates anything. Did you
even bother to read it before you objected?

Here's the executive summary for the executive who is too busy to read the 
full text: I object to the text "Moderators are typically human". Period. 
Moderators are ALWAYS human. I suggested simple replacement text that 
solves that problem. It mandates nothing, it changes nothing other than 
removes an objectionable statement. It makes no reference to moderators
either being or not being human. What is your objection to that, if you
have one?

Seth Breidbart <sethb@xxxxxxxxx>:

>Even when the RFD and CFV say that the group will be robomoderated,
>and it is?

Yes. Even when there is a human in charge of a piece of software that
automates an approval. "Some moderators have implemented automated 
systems...".

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>I think the original text more accurately reflects reality. That wording
>has been around for more years than I care to remember, and it is odd that
>John has just noticed this.

I objected to this text before, and I'm objecting to it again while it is 
still open for discussion.  I did not "just notice this", despite your 
lie to the contrary, and I object formally to the Chair that you are 
bring ad-hominem back into the group at this point. Either support the 
text as it stands or argue the suggested text as it stands, but keep
your crap about "odd" and who proposed it to yourself.

The existing text does not reflect reality. Moderators aren't "typically"
human, they are always human.

>I could accept some intermediate wording (e.g. s/typically/usually/ (or
>'generally').

Since you are not the editor of this document, you will accept what the
group decides. I tired of your attempts at monarchy over this document a
long time ago, and I have tired of your attempted lies even before that.

Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>Hm, well, this is certainly true from the perspective of Big Eight policy,
>but there isn't any inherent reason why some hierarchy couldn't have a
>central automated moderation service in which the software works the same
>for every group.

I am simply fascinated by the number of people in this working group who
appear to think that software comes into existance sans any human action
or supervision.

I neither care about nor does my suggested text prohibit in any way a 
hierarchy that appoints one person to be the moderator for all the 
moderated groups within it, or even a hierarchy created by one person who 
claims moderator status over all his domain. If that person runs a piece 
of software to assist him in doing his job, I neither care nor does my 
suggested text prohibit it. If that person sets up the software and then 
goes on an extended vacation, neither I nor my suggested text cares.

All my suggested text does is remove the silly claim that the moderator
is only "typically" human. Period.

>It's semantic quibbling to a degree since you can always then argue that
>the hierarchy administrator is the moderator.

Of course the moderator is a human. That's the point, Russ. It is stupid
to pretend that a human is not the moderator just because he uses a piece
of software to assist him. He is not "typically" a human.

Seth Breidbart <sethb@xxxxxxxxx>:

>Except that (1) no one person decided on the bot, the group (by vote)
>did.

I see. So the human who sets it up and runs it is no longer a human 
because the group voted? I think not.

The group selected a moderator who promised to run a bot. If you check
your USENET (and Big 8 especially) history, you will find it replete with
a) such examples and b) moderators who realize they have to change the way
things were voted on so the group can continue to operate. SSFAM is just
one big example. Moderation by bot -- until the system was proven to be
trivially breakable. It wasn't the "bot" that decided something was wrong,
it was the MODERATOR team -- all of whom are humans.

>(2) Who is "whoever controls the modbot"?

Anyone who controls how it operates, and who is called upon to fix it
when it breaks. Usually specified in the group creation process.

>One of the five people with access to that account?

Any one or more of the five, perhaps. Who gets called to fix it? Who is
responsible for moving the operation of the modbot when the system upon
which it runs is removed from service?

>Them plus the sysadmins of the site it runs on?

Was the system admin named as the moderator of the group, or in the list
of moderators? You are asking questions whose answers depend on the actual
group creation.

>Or just the owner of the site, who has the final say?

Is the owner of the site not a human? Are ANY of the people you asked 
about NOT humans? I don't have to tell you which of those people are the
moderator, since my only claim is that the moderator is human. Since they
are all human, any one of them fits that criterion. I don't care which.

And nothing in my propsed text cares which it is, either. All my proposed
text does is remove a patently silly statement that the moderator is only
"typically" a human. What's the big deal?

>(3) What happens if everybody who controls the bot goes away,
>and it keeps running just fine on autopilot?

Humans never die in your universe? Wow. And systems run forever without 
upgrades or replacements?

Or is it just that software in your universe configures itself by itself
and never needs a human to set it up or monitor its operation?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:54:00 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> Stanley,

Alvestrand?

> you insist on using your own definitions rather than trying to get the 
> document to have consistent and useful definitions.

Nonsense. I'm looking at the real world. I call that "useful".

> The document currently says "articles are forwarded to a moderator".
> If the moderator can be a software program, we have one self-consistent 
> definition of "moderator".

And if we don't say anything about what the moderator is, we still
have a self-consistent definition of moderator, especially since we
have no definition of moderator at all.

I'll say this again since saying it once didn't seem to sink in and 
actually reading the text doesn't seem to be an option. The text I 
proposed says NOTHING AT ALL about what a moderator is, it only removes a 
patently silly claim that a moderator is only "typically" a human.

If it is acceptable to say "articles are forwarded to a moderator" then
it is just as acceptable to say "articles are submitted" to them, since
your "forwarding" is just another way of saying they are "submitted", and
the latter emphasizes that they are submissions and not necessarily
acceptable.

> If the moderator is human, but may never get sent most of the articles, as 
> you seem to imply,

I made no such implication. You didn't read the proposed text, did you? It 
says that articles ARE submitted to "one or more moderators". That is 
hardly an implication that they may never get sent most of the articles. 
There is no other option in the proposed text. Articles ARE submitted.
What other option do you see my text allowing?

Now, just as in real life, the moderator might not SEE every article,
but he is SENT every article; otherwise, his automated software would
not be able to approve and post it.

> we have another self-consistent definition, but the 
> sentence that is currently in the document is not consistent with it.

This is an interesting argument style. We cannot change a statement in
the draft because changing it would make it inconsistent with what was
already there.

In any case, you are wrong. It is not inconsistent at all. If you want to 
continue with an odd, unrealistic definition of moderator that has it 
being some self-aware bit of software that makes decisions all by itself, 
fine. Articles are submitted to "it". Maybe "it" has written other 
software to automate the process. After all, if it is conscious enough to 
produce itself without human oversight, then maybe it can produce other 
software. Nothing in the proposed texts prevents that.

The rest of the world is operating as if the moderator is a human who 
sometimes has software doing part or all of the work for him. If you want 
a realistic description, that's the direction you'll go. But then, as I 
said several times already, my proposed text does not mandate the human 
status of a moderator. Any objection you have to my proposed text based on 
it mandating that moderators are human just demonstrates that you didn't 
bother reading either the proposed text or the message to which you have 
just replied.

> I suggest that we're much better off with the current document's definition 
> of "moderator" than with your implied one.

I suggest you read the proposed text for what it actually says and stop
objecting to things it doesn't say. You're the chair of this group;
I expect at least YOU to read what is written.

As for the current document's definition of moderator, I find none. The 
word "moderator" appears exactly twice in -08, both times in the paragraph 
under discussion. This paragraph does not define what a moderator is. It 
says only that he is "typically" a human, when in real life he is always a 
human. Someone is always responsible. Someone picks what code to run. The 
fact that you do not see him on a daily basis does not mean he does not 
exist any more than your dissappearance for weeks at a time means you do 
not exist.

In the same vein, my proposed text does nothing to define what a moderator
is. Of course, if you actually read the text, you'd see that. It's a silly
argument to claim that I'm defining "moderator" in a non-consistent manner
when neither paragraph defines moderator to start with.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:45:16 +0200

[email-masked] wrote:
>> I've seen mailing lists gatewayed to Netnews where the "moderator" 
>> was set to be the mailing list - the result was that all messages 
>> posted to the newsgroup were sent to the mailing list, and eventually 
>> came back to the newsgroup. No human moderator anywhere in sight.
>
Stanley,

If the moderator is human, but may never get sent most of the articles, 
as you seem to imply, we have another self-consistent definition, but 
the sentence that is currently in the document is not consistent with it.

I suggest that we're much better off with the current document's 
definition of "moderator" than with your implied one.

                  Harlad

---

From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:51:25 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:
  This paragraph does not define what a moderator is. It
> exist any more than your dissappearance for weeks at a time means you do 

/+1

A moderator cannot be software anymore than "some computer" can post UCE.  ["Oh,
so sorry, but that computer just keeps posting all that UCE, and our hands
are tied, you know...."]

Hey, since you want to elevate the moderator's implementation choices up
into the document, can the wording state that the injecting server sends posts 
for approval to the spam filter of the moderator, or the user-agent of the 
moderator, or the MSA at the address of the moderator?  Surely the moderator
uses most of those.

And since it is possible to set up a newsgroup and let their dog approve or 
reject submissions, should the document mention that?

OK, now for some "big picture" criticism of this farce....

Typically, this "WG" (by that I mean Charles) has produced volumes of text just 
like this, which describes the design from the bottom-up.  This style makes the 
reasons you want to do something hard to discern.

While I am bothering to write, this bottom-up vs top-down is why issuing 
USEFOR-USEFOR before USEFOR-USEPRO makes little sense to me.

Suppose some group (of people) were to design a messaging system, and needed to 
specify procedures for handling all communication, error conditions, protocol, 
etc.....Do you suppose they would publish the message format specification 
first, and then hold the rest of the design to be subject to those details?

Sigh.  bottoms-up, all.  Any implementor trying to use a document
produced by this WG is going to want to start with a good stiff drink.

---

From: Seth Breidbart <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:10:28 -0400 (EDT)

[email-masked] wrote:

> The rest of the world is operating as if the moderator is a human
> who sometimes has software doing part or all of the work for him.

Consider the statement: "The rest of the world is operating as if the
moderator is a program that automagically determines whether or not
and when to post the article, perhaps with modifications."

How can I determine which of those is the case based on the actions of
"the rest of the world"?

> This paragraph does not define what a moderator is. It says only
> that he is "typically" a human, when in real life he is always a
> human. Someone is always responsible. Someone picks what code to
> run.

So a dead human can be a moderator.  So can a committee.  A committee
is not a human.

Seth