Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/03/03/07:56:22
> Is this at all realistic? I mean, do we have a volunteer? (And no, I
> *don't* volunteer, sorry.) IMHO, the burden of moderation is quite
> high, and unless we have somebody who is willing to devote the
> resources without causing significant slow-down of the turn-around, I
> think this discussion is a bit academic.
You're thinking about a moderated newsgroup. Retro-moderation is
different. R-M allows someone to cancel a post because of content,
but only after people start seeing it. If the R-M's do nothing, the
list continues as it has (as nothing gets canceled), with no changes
and no performance loss.
R-M will allow some people to cancel spams and anti-spam followups,
instead of just ignoring them.
If an off-topic thread gets to the point where someone has to jump in
and yell "ENOUGH!" then future articles on that thread probably should
be canceled also.
R-M also lets us modify postings that are cross-posted to include a
follow-up to an appropriate newsgroup.
Technically, we could do any of these now, since they require no
configuration changes to the news servers. However, it's not a Good
Thing unless the charter is changed to reflect it. Doing it
officially gives someone the right to handle the extreme cases, rather
than just hope they go away.
- Raw text -