Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!cornell!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!twwells!bill From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: How can a moderator take a vacation? Message-ID: <217@twwells.uucp> Date: 27 Nov 88 09:21:36 GMT References: <200@twwells.uucp> <7755@well.UUCP> Reply-To: bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale Lines: 60 In article <7755@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer writes: : } The second has to do : }with communication. Some method needs to be established so that the : }backup moderator knows when to pick up the traces. Again, not too : }much of a problem, just needs setting up the procedures. : : Yes, such procedures are easy to figure out and not particularly critical. : Since we are getting explicit here, how about this: if the backup moderator : doesn't see any postings in the group for a month, and checks an alternate : news-reading site to make sure it's not a local problem, and can't get in : touch with the primary moderator by PHONE (e-mail would be useless), then : the backup takes over and the primary becomes the backup. That's certainly workable, though maybe two weeks might be more reasonable (depending on the group, of course). : }The main problem with this method is that the alternate moderator : }can't get at messages related to the newsgroup that are sent to the : }main moderator's personal account. I get quite a few of these, and I : }don't suppose that I am unique. I can't think of any scheme that : }doesn't require explicit handing-off by the moderator that gets this : }mail to the alternate moderator. : : Oh, nonsense. That's what *-request aliases are for! You know that. I know that. But about 30% of the people sending to comp.archives do it to my personal account. Another half of the messages I get are replies to postings. These get sent to a specific mail address and the backbone sites never get the chance to redirect them. : Now the problem with your simpler method should be (once again) obvious: : it requires the moderator to take action when he about to disappear. Since : the disappearance could be due to his machine failing, or a newsfeed of his : failing, or merely a sudden case of brain-lock, he does not know when he : is about to disappear, and so cannot take any action. A more robust mechanism : is necessary. Well, "necessary" isn't the word I'd use. Call it "desirable". That puts things in perspective. No one who gets things from the moderated newsgroups appreciates it when those newsgroups dry up. One of the issues at hand is whether this inconvenience justifies having a backup moderator. This is certainly not an open-and-shut question. Might I suggest that this "should" should be dealt with in the way that all other questions of this type are dealt with? Yes, the vote! In other words, you seem to feel that comp.sources.unix is not adequately moderated. So, go over to news.groups, propose that "x" (you get to find "x") be appointed alternate moderator of comp.sources.unix, and see if you can get the 100 vote spread for approval. If you manage to get the votes, I'm sure that the current moderator will figure out some method of using the backup. --- Bill {uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!bill