Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!well!pokey From: pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: comp.sources.unix Message-ID: <7757@well.UUCP> Date: 26 Nov 88 01:42:30 GMT References: <13172@ncoast.UUCP> Reply-To: Jef Poskanzer Organization: Paratheo-Anametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric, Ada Lovelace Cabal Lines: 64 In the referenced message, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) wrote: }In article <7670@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer writes: }: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. } }How long is "awhile"? It doesn't matter. As I mentioned in my latest reply to Bill, any time period will be better than the current situation, where the time period is infinite. } And how do you deal with: }(a) propagation delay is long enough between the two machines that it *looks* } like the primary moderator disappeared for a time, to the backup } moderator? The phone. }(b) Single articles that for some reason don't reach the backup moderator's } system, but *do* reach everywhere else? (It happens all the time. We } have yet to receive a complete multipart submission from comp.sources.unix } here on ncoast.) And how many single articles never reach the sole moderator under the current system? If anything, the dual moderator system would handle this problem better, since there is more of a chance for the article to get to someone who can do something with it. }: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. } }It has been "come up with"; it has been discussed; it was rejected for the }above reasons and others, for sources groups. Nice demagoguery, Brandon. Pardon me while I expell a small wad of nasal material. }Admitted, there *is* a problem, and it needs to be solved. But there are no }solutions that work well enough to warrant being used on a net-wide basis. I disagree. }And as far as comp.sources.misc goes -- I do this as a service to the net, }and it takes up valuable time that could be used far more profitably in }other ways. If Jef is so certain that he can do it better, he's welcome to }move over to news.groups and start a vote to become moderator. And I write free software as a service to the net, and we've already done this chest-beating routine. I have never said anything about me moderating better than you. I am telling you how you can do it better, if you want to. You and the other moderators ought to have jumped at the chance. Instead all I hear is a lot of whining. This only confirms my initial suspicion that the moderators have become personalities, AND THEY LIKE IT THAT WAY. You guys have heard of egoless programming, haven't you? Think about egoless moderating. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@rtsg.ee.lbl.gov ...well!pokey Contents under pressure.