How moderation would work
Robert Coe
would (or should) vote on whether to accept a particular article. Surely
that would be too cumbersome and slow! It would (IMO) make much more sense
to allow any member of the panel to decide on any article, bouncing it to one
or more of the others only if he didn't feel qualified to make the call. The
full panel would deal only with complaints that one or more of their number
was being too lenient or too strict.
___ _ - Bob
/__) _ / / ) _ _
(_/__) (_)_(_) (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ b...@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265
Matt Austern
> There's been a lot said recently to the effect that the panel of moderators
> would (or should) vote on whether to accept a particular article. Surely
> that would be too cumbersome and slow! It would (IMO) make much more sense
> to allow any member of the panel to decide on any article, bouncing it to one
> or more of the others only if he didn't feel qualified to make the call. The
> full panel would deal only with complaints that one or more of their number
> was being too lenient or too strict.
That's the intention, and for exactly the reason you give: voting on
every article would be far too cumbersome.
The way things will work is that an article will be sent to one of the
moderators at random. That moderator can either post it or reject it.
If necessary, the moderators can ask each other (Or other people too!
The moderators aren't experts on everything, any more than anyone else
is) for advice, but the hope is that this will only rarely be
necessary.
There will also be an alias set up so that people can send mail to all
of the moderators; that's so that people who are concerned about group
moderation can discuss them.
--
Matthew Austern Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618 crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
aus...@lbl.bitnet faction, an army! If you don't have any
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu solutions, become a part of the problem!
John C. Baez
>would (or should) vote on whether to accept a particular article. Surely
>that would be too cumbersome and slow!
Indeed, I would never consent to moderate if I had to look at all
articles. For one, I have other things to do. For two, I go on
vacations now and then. I expect to discuss only the most problematic
cases with other moderators, at least once things get going.
Richard M. Mathews
>The way things will work is that an article will be sent to one of the
>moderators at random. That moderator can either post it or reject it.
It could be helpful if all articles in the same thread could be forwarded
to the same moderator. This could result in a more consistent cut-off of
any thread which starts to deteriorate into a flame war. The software
doing to forwarding would need to keep track of recent Message-IDs
and/or Subjects to be compared with the References and Subject lines
of incoming articles. Any interest in setting up such a thing? (If
you like the idea and the only problem is with creating the software,
that's not too big a problem.)
Richard M. Mathews F oster
E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
Richard...@West.Sun.COM I ndependence and
F reedom!
W. Donald Rolph
I would like to add a comment or two here, since this overall thread is
concerning me. There have been some small but countable flame wars which seem to
have been the immediate cause for concern. Might I suggest that the catchup
/mark all read button cleans out the junk without putting in place a beauracracy.
I agree that a smaller physics goup hold some attraction - but is it worth the
limitation of potentially good ideas?
Lets face it, netnews in at best constrained anarchy. If we want refereed
journals, they exist.
--
Regards.
Don Rolph a72...@pan.mc.ti.com WD3 MS10-13 (508)-699-1263