From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 23:23:08 -0800 (PST)
To: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
Subject: Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy
In-Reply-To: <v03007806aefcde0a5a6a@[205.186.122.248]>
Message-ID: <199701110718.BAA03084@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


Bill Frantz wrote:
> 
> At 8:19 PM -0800 1/10/97, Lucky Green wrote:
> >Just for the record, I have volunteered to serve as a co-moderator. I do
> >not know at this time if my services will be required. I am certain that I
> >would not enjoy this job. I have better things to do than moderate
> >Cypherpunks. But as a long time subscriber, I care about the list.
> 
> AMEN (as a short time subscriber).
> 
> If you need me as a moderator (if you need me, you are getting very
> desperate), I will help.  However, I am going out of the country in two
> weeks not to return until March 9, so stepping forward now is a bit silly.
> 
> Let me rant a bit about the "ideal" moderation structure.  Igor Chudov's
> software lets people like Matt Blase and Bruce Schneier post whatever they
> want.  (I would add people like Black Unicorn as well.  YMMV)  Other posts
> go into a pool accessible to all moderators.  If one moderator approves,
> the message goes out.  If N reject, it is rejected.  These rejections could
> either be anonymous or be included in an x-moderators-rejecting: header for
> the "worst of cypherpunks" list.

I think that Bill proposes a very interesting idea. His suggestion would
eliminate a lot of [well-grounded] suspicion about arbitrary rejections
at a "whim" of moderators.

My only concern is that there will be more work for moderators, because
in his scheme each "bad" message has to be reviewed by N people instead
of 1.

It is a tradeoff between a more liberal policy and efficient use of
moderators' time.

	- Igor.