jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer) (11/30/90)
In the referenced message, werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) wrote: } yes, I see a symptom of the problem that we have not instituted } a methodology of having multiple moderators share the load and } to guarantee "continuity and reliability of service". Heh heh heh. "Suggestion: every moderated group should be required to have at least two moderators." -- me, 02nov88. By the way, that discussion thread was titled "Re: comp.sources.unix". What I was talking about was having a designated backup moderator ready to take over should anything (e.g. boredom) happen to the primary. This suggestion was met with outrage amazingly similar to what is currently being posted: "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." -- Brandon Allbery "Mr. Poskanzer, Shut your yap." -- T. William Wells So nothing has changed in two years, even though the solution has been sitting there waiting for someone to implement it. The problem is that the someone who has to implement it is the moderator himself, so it will never happen. By the way, Rich $alz asked me specifically to send him the next release of pbmplus for distribution via comp.sources.unix. As it stands now, I will not be doing this. It will go to alt.sources, since that is currently the only reliable channel for general-purpose sources. I'm sure this will provoke screams from those who don't get alt.sources. I'll be forwarding those screams to Rich $alz's mailbox. Anyone who wants to moderate comp.sources.unix2, please step forward. I'll certainly vote for such a group. But until then, I'll continue to use alt.sources. I suggest that anyone who has a package in the comp.sources.unix queue do likewise. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef "I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself."
dnb@meshugge.media.mit.edu (David N. Blank) (11/30/90)
> It will go to alt.sources, since that is currently the only reliable > channel for general-purpose sources. You bet, any code that is submitted gets posted. No one checks for code with security holes, code that doesn't compile, non-standard idioms (makefiles & etc), missing files, non-standard shar formats, portability, & etc. Don't get me wrong, I am greatly indebted to the people who have posted code to alt.sources, and appreciate that they have done so. Both delivery mechanisms have their place in this world. When source is posted, all of the above is done by R. Salz (and done well, in my experience). Perhaps he could make improvements in the service he provides, but if I had to pick between slow or shoddy work, I think I would go for slow. Peace, dNb P.S. I got lost in your logic somewhere. Is this correct: 1) You won't be posting the latest version of pbmplus (a great package, BTW) to comp.sources.unix, only to alt.sources. 2) Those who don't get alt.sources willl scream. 3) You will forward their messages to R.Salz, who didn't post your package because he didn't have it? This is supposed to do exactly what?
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) (11/30/90)
Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: |Anyone who wants to moderate comp.sources.unix2, please step forward. |I'll certainly vote for such a group. But until then, I'll continue |to use alt.sources. I suggest that anyone who has a package in the |comp.sources.unix queue do likewise. why doesn't someone do a call for discussion on comp.sources.posix or something or other. if the sense of outrage is both broad and deep then something should come of it. -- pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms (Bitnet) opinions found above are mine unless marked otherwise.
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (11/30/90)
In article <DNB.90Nov29153511@meshugge.media.mit.edu> dnb@meshugge.media.mit.edu (David N. Blank) writes: >> It will go to alt.sources, since that is currently the only reliable >> channel for general-purpose sources. > >You bet, any code that is submitted gets posted. No one checks for >code with security holes, code that doesn't compile, non-standard >idioms (makefiles & etc), missing files, non-standard shar formats, >portability, & etc. True, that's a risk; but one that a motivated user can tackle himself by editing, compiling, and testing. The power is in all our hands. This is not true with a recalcitrant moderator, who holds the source somewhere we can't get at it. It's a tradeoff. YOU may be scared when a new editor or game comes down the unmoderated pipe, but I'M not. And that's fine; freedom of choice is what the net's all about. An approved, 'safe,' 'debugged' moderated channel is a wonderful idea, but when throughput dries up without adequate explanation or response from the moderator, it's little wonder confidence erodes and people start gravitating to less 'secure' but more available channels.
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (12/01/90)
[ Followups to news.groups ] According to Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us>: >Heh heh heh. "Suggestion: every moderated group should be required to >have at least two moderators." -- me, 02nov88. A good idea whose time came a long time ago, and continues to today. What say we add this to the guidelines? -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "I've been cranky ever since my comp.unix.wizards was removed by that evil Chip Salzenberg." -- John F. Haugh II
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (12/02/90)
As quoted from <21867@well.sf.ca.us> by jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer): +--------------- | In the referenced message, werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) wrote: | } yes, I see a symptom of the problem that we have not instituted | } a methodology of having multiple moderators share the load and | } to guarantee "continuity and reliability of service". | | Heh heh heh. "Suggestion: every moderated group should be required to | have at least two moderators." -- me, 02nov88. By the way, that | | "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." | -- Brandon Allbery +--------------- At the risk of being flamed: As long as Usenet moderation services are volunteered, do not take place at fixed dates and/or times, and are not supported by a reasonably fast network linking sites where such activity takes place (UUCP exists; flaming about it accomplishes exactly nothing unless you're going to pay for an Internet connection for people who have only UUCP), *and* there is a need to coordinate aspects of the service (specifically, archival information), multiple moderation in archived groups is going to be extremely difficult to implement. It's done now (Australian sub-moderators), but this depends on one side delaying submissions until the other side updates the archive database --- which works for the Aussie case because I get maybe three requests in a year, but would be a major can of worms if we broke it up by, say, NSFnet component regional networks. You also have to consider compatibility: I've been flamed to a crisp by archivers all over the Usenet when I've proposed changes to the archiving scheme. That can ruin good ideas that could otherwise solve the problem, like adding an extra directory level based on the sending moderator, if a majority of the archive sites decide they don't want anything to do with the idea. As things stand now, the most noticeable effect of multiple moderation would be either chaos or very long submission delay times, depending on whether the moderators synchronize their databases before or after sending a submission out. I therefore repeat my earlier response to Jef, expanded: if you think you can make a multiple moderation scheme work, create a newsgroup using it and show me --- and the rest of the Usenet --- that it works. As it stands, trying it on .misc or .unix when they're already drawing flames from readers is a recipe for completely destroying the groups. Something *proven* to work, on the other hand, can be retrofitted once it has been proven. ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer) (12/03/90)
In the referenced message, allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) wrote: }At the risk of being flamed: Yes indeed. }I therefore repeat my earlier response to Jef, expanded: if you think you can }make a multiple moderation scheme work, create a newsgroup using it and show }me --- and the rest of the Usenet --- that it works. Duh. Me write software. Me not distribute software. Me not run newsgroups. Me not play net.politics. Me just write software. Do you understand yet, or should I try again with even shorter words? I am doing my part. Let the moderators do theirs, or resign. If you don't like my suggestion of a primary moderator and one or more ready-to-go spares, fine. If you think you can do your job without that, fine. YOU SHOW ME. Do *your* job, don't tell me to do it. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef NO TOURBOTS
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (12/04/90)
In article <21867@well.sf.ca.us> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: : This : suggestion was met with outrage amazingly similar to what is currently : being posted: : : "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." : -- Brandon Allbery : "Mr. Poskanzer, Shut your yap." -- T. William Wells Here is the entire posting Mr. Poskanzer has just lied about: --- From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: comp.sources.unix Message-ID: <184@twwells.uucp> Date: 18 Nov 88 10:23:11 GMT References: <13092@ncoast.UUCP> <7670@well.UUCP> Reply-To: bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale In article <7670@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <jef@rtsg.ee.lbl.gov> writes: : Gee, you're right, a centralized mechanism doesn't work in a distributed : environment. How CLEVER you are to figure this out! Nevertheless, : sci.med.aids seems to do just fine with its multiplicity of *real* : moderators. I wonder, how can they possibly avoid this "mess" you are : worried about? : : 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. : : 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. Mr. Poskanzer, Shut your yap. We moderate newsgroups out of generosity, spending time and money to so, because we believe that what we are doing is a good thing. You have no business badmouthing one of us because he isn't doing it just the way you'd like. Suggestions are welcome, personal remarks are not. You owe him, and all the other moderators out here, an apology. --- Bill { uunet | decwrl | telesci }!twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (12/05/90)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes:
#I therefore repeat my earlier response to Jef, expanded: if you think you can
#make a multiple moderation scheme work, create a newsgroup using it and show
#me --- and the rest of the Usenet --- that it works. As it stands, trying it
#on .misc or .unix when they're already drawing flames from readers is a recipe
#for completely destroying the groups. Something *proven* to work, on the
#other hand, can be retrofitted once it has been proven.
How about soc.feminism, for instance? They have four moderators.
/JBL
=
Nets: levin@bbn.com | "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's
or {...}!bbn!levin | bureau that morning. Wide-eyed and distraught, she
POTS: (617)873-3463 | stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor."