🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <m720wB1w165w@1776.COM> bob@1776.COM (Robert Coe) writes:

> 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
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!