🚀 go-pugleaf

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."