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.