Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wyse!vsi1!apple!well!pokey From: pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: comp.sources.unix Message-ID: <7670@well.UUCP> Date: 17 Nov 88 10:30:36 GMT References: <13092@ncoast.UUCP> Reply-To: Jef Poskanzer Organization: Paratheo-Anametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric, Ada Lovelace Cabal Lines: 31 In the referenced message, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) wrote: >>>> Suggestion: every moderated group should be required >>>>to have at least two moderators. >>>hmm, that could lead to coordination problems. >>Sci.med.aids seems to do just fine with its multiplicity of moderators. >Sci.med.aids doesn't have Posting-Number: headers. Synchronizing with the >occasional Aussie posting is difficult enough to give me a good idea of how >bad a mess a *real* multiple-moderator situation would be. Gee, you're right, a centralized mechanism doesn't work in a distributed environment. How CLEVER you are to figure this out! Nevertheless, sci.med.aids seems to do just fine with its multiplicity of *real* moderators. I wonder, how can they possibly avoid this "mess" you are worried about? Anyway, I was thinking more along the lines of a primary moderator and a backup moderator. Both would receive the postings, but the backup would normally throw them out. However, if the primary disappears for a while, or perhaps even goes on a real vacation, the backup would be able to take over with minimal fuss. Maybe if you had been thinking about solving the problem instead of about protecting your position, you would have come up with this idea yourself. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@rtsg.ee.lbl.gov ...well!pokey "I'm dying. Kiss me, Hardy!" -- Admiral Horatio Nelson