Jimbo wrote:
>First, any one approver can send message onward to the list. So the
>conspiracy of silence would have to be unanimous.
>
>Second, I pledge to log in at least once per day, weekdays, to process
>all the remainders. (Possibly the list will be made unmoderated on
>the weekends? Or the approvers can be more generous on the weekends.)
>
>Third, any post that I reject will give the poster the option of
>INSISTING that it be published as-is, subject only to whatever legal
>liability I might face if it's really awful (like a death threat).
>
>Fourth, wikipedia-l will remain unmoderated, so anyone who feels that
>I've been cruel can squawk about it over there, unhindered.
>
>Do those safeguards address your concerns sufficiently?
Sounds fine. I'm not trying to be difficult, really. I do want
*something* to change, you know. :-)
kq