--- Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Suresh,
I don't mind having WG lists moderate contributions from non-subscribers,
provided the moderator can act in a timely fashion (say within a day or
so) and the moderator allows any post that is even arguably on-topic for
the list.
Having a separate subscribe-to-post requirement alleviates the burden
on the list administartor, at the cost of minor one-time additional
inconvenience to the poster. This, in no way, violates the principle
of open participation and being open to good ideas from all sources.
If a responsible poster still chooses to send a message without
subscribing-to-post, then it is not unreasonable if the message posting
is delayed by more than a day or is dropped at the discrition of the
list moderator(s). On the other hand, if spam is sent automagically to
a bunch of lists, the spam will automagically get dropped, unless the
spam sender subscribes to each of the lists and violates the posting
law.
for reasons already stated, I doubt that a single moderator could be
found for the main ietf list. but I would like to see an experiment
with the 'multiple per-message moderators chosen at random from the
subcriber list' proposals.
I am OK with the idea of multiple moderators. Many lists already
have multiple moderators. The IESG members, for example, could be the
moderators for the IETF list.
Unless the moderators group is pre-selected, attempting to select a
moderator at random from the subscriber list for each new mailing thread
can be at best difficult and at worst a box of pandora. The random
selection process in itself can become very hard to manage and will
become a giant meta problem in itself.
<.. stuff deleted>
Thanks. Have a nie day.
cheers,
suresh
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/