gdmr@cstvax.UUCP (George D M Ross) (03/05/86)
In article <1064@burl.UUCP> rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: ># rmgroup net.sources, use only mod.sources >*I* liked this one a lot, but so many people screamed that the mod.* >groups are not yet out of their infancy and are difficult to post to, >etc. that I don't think it is a good idea *yet*. Many people expressed >difficulties in reaching moderators of certain groups, for example; >mod.sources was cited in particular. For groups where postings may be large, such as mod.sources, we should perhaps be thinking of having multiple moderators at sites which are geographically widely separated (or maybe separated in terms of some network connectivity and cost metric, but that wouldn't be so simple...). The consequent reduction in redundant traffic (e.g. shipping Kbytes of source across the Atlantic only to have it shipped straight back again) would surely outweigh any possible drawbacks. With more moderators the workload would presumably be spread more thinly too...? -- George D M Ross, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Edinburgh, Scotland Phone: +44 31-667 1081 x2730 JANET: gdmr@UK.AC.ed.cstvax --> ARPA: gdmr@cstvax.ed.AC.UK UUCP: <UK>!ukc!cstvax!gdmr
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (03/08/86)
In article <72@cstvax.UUCP> gdmr@cstvax.UUCP (George D M Ross) writes: >In article <1064@burl.UUCP> rcj@burl.UUCP (me) writes: >># rmgroup net.sources, use only mod.sources >>*I* liked this one a lot, but so many people screamed that the mod.* >>groups are not yet out of their infancy and are difficult to post to, >>etc. that I don't think it is a good idea *yet*. Many people expressed >>difficulties in reaching moderators of certain groups, for example; >>mod.sources was cited in particular. > >For groups where postings may be large, such as mod.sources, we should perhaps >be thinking of having multiple moderators at sites which are geographically >widely separated (or maybe separated in terms of some network connectivity >and cost metric, but that wouldn't be so simple...). The consequent >reduction in redundant traffic (e.g. shipping Kbytes of source across the >Atlantic only to have it shipped straight back again) would surely outweigh >any possible drawbacks. With more moderators the workload would presumably >be spread more thinly too...? I like this one a lot, too! Really, shouldn't we at least be thinking about one moderator per *continent* for mod.sources and other potentially high-traffic groups? An aside to Mark and/or Gene: Is there info in the net.announce.newusers stuff on posting to mod.* groups? -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj