Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: new moderator needed for c.b.i.p
Message-ID: <393@sixhub.UUCP>
Date: 9 Jan 90 21:41:36 GMT
References: <1208@cirrusl.UUCP> <24460001@csd2.NYU.EDU>
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Lines: 21

In article <24460001@csd2.NYU.EDU> mitsolid@csd2.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) writes:
| /* csd2:comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d / dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) / 12:51 am  Jan  4, 1990 */
| > The fairest way of finding a new moderator is for the c.b.i.p community
| 
| 
| Is there any reason why we should have ONLY 1 moderator?
| Having 2-3 moderators would make the task for each of them lighter.
| Also, we would see more postings.

  Ummmm, that's the problem. The volume of binary postings got
unreasonably large, so the c.b.i.p group was created to limit the
volume. All the other stuff, like archives, etc, quality control, are
fringe benefits.

  Having several people do QA on the postings would be a good idea, but
they would more likely be people asked by the moderator to participate.
-- 
	bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
davidsen@sixhub.uucp		...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen

"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon