From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL WWW List <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL moderation report: 2009-6-16 |
Date: | 2009-06-16 15:11:04 |
Message-ID: | 937d27e10906160811m1aa6c5a6v4cf495ae6f0434a4@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> So the rest of us have to start filtering junk from our -www
>>> subscription? Please undo this.
>
>> Unless you have a better way of ensuring everything gets moderated.
>> This was discussed last week,
>
> Discussed where? Not here, that I saw.
Thread starts here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2009-06/msg00058.php
> Personally, I'm perfectly capable of procmail'ing these things into
> oblivion, and I'm sure most of the other subscribers to -www are too.
> So in a week or so the only effect that these missives will have is
> to permanently clutter the list archives.
Well frankly this is exactly the sort of thing this list was
originally setup for, alongside discussion and other admin issues. I
was quite happy to leave it as a closed list, but others wanted it
opened up so they could see what went on.
> (If you wanted actual shame, how about a report saying "so-and-so
> hasn't done any moderation work in X weeks"?)
Not very practical, as the system doesn't know anything about the
moderators, and some only cover areas that rarely need any work, or
vacations etc.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2009-06-16 19:37:39 | Re: List moderation - need a break! |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-16 15:04:25 | Re: PostgreSQL moderation report: 2009-6-16 |