On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 14:36, The Cunctator wrote: What are the problems that this would solve, and how would it solve them? -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 14:55, The Cunctator wrote: Present solution: Filter your mailbox; put lists in their own folders. (But not everyone has a mailreader that does filtering, or knows how to set it up if they do.) Present solution: Use a threaded mailreader. (But not everyone has a mailreader that does threading, or knows has to turn it on if they do.) Present solution: Hyperlink to the archives on the web; most mailreaders these days will let you click on a URL. (But it's harder to reply to the original post; it's hard to search the archives; URLs are long.) Not sure what you mean here -- perhaps easier ability to link from Wikipedia pages to particular threads in the bbs? How so? Now, that _would_ be nice. I'm not sure how the bbs helps here. It's trivial to include a URL to a talk page in a list message, and URLs to bbs threads are about as obscure as URLs to the mailing list archive. A web board is also inimical to offline reading (as is the 'pedia, at present) and doesn't integrate well with people who have an organized way to deal with massive amounts of e-mail. Possible solution: smtp<->bbs or nntp<->bbs gateway. There's some potential here though; feel free to set up a page on meta with some specific proposals. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Wha, wha? I'm honored and flattered and enormously pleased. :) That said, I have enough self-knowledge to know that I can run pretty hot-tempered at times, I just express it as sarcasm rather than direct insult. Same song, different key... just as inappropriate for someone who has to be impartial. I also, realistically, doubt that I'd have the time to put in to proper moderation duties. That said, I was struck by what Tom Parmenter said earlier: how just having a striped shirt around to blow the whistle and say "cool it, guys!" can be bloody useful. This gives me the idea for a compromise proposal. Instead of moderating the list, at least for now, why not appoint a few "referees"? Their function would be to respond ASAP when a discussion starts to get ugly, and say: "TWEET!! If I were a moderator I would have blocked that post for X reason." This means the list keeps at its current speed and responsiveness, while still having people around to step in and point out that someone's going beyond the pale when they're too emotionally involved to see it themselves. Nor would the position of referee be toothless, as some might fear. After all, they can always threaten to start up the moderation discussion again. ;) More seriously, if someone's collecting a lot of whistle-toots, that can be brought to the attention of Fearless Leader... er, kidding, Jimbo.... who can then Take Appropriate Steps. Note that this doesn't require too much extra effort either from Jimbo or the referees, making it quite easy to institute. And such "referees" could check each other, too, an important point to keep in mind, as we're all human and slip sometimes. This, my objections to myself above would not apply to a referee position (hint, hint... :) Now, on the other side of things, some people are vehemently against establishing any sort of heirarchy. It is, of course, quite possible for everyone to referee; to an extent, we all do (calls to stop flaming, etc). However, there's a difference between a few people saying "stop that!" and a few people /who have been mutually agreed upon by the list to keep an eye on things/ saying "stop that!" The first is an expression of personal opinion; the second is an expression of personal opinion backed by a mutual agreement. When attending demonstrations, there are often people with orange T-shirts or armbands running around, and the demonstrators usually listen to them. They have no legal power, but the demonstrators understand that they're there for the safety and well-being of all. (Yes, there are some who will get out of hand. That's why we have police and Jimbo, respectively...) And, of course, my best argument: if we try voluntary moderation via referee, and it doesn't work, then full moderation will remain an option, and now with the advantage of saying, "we tried it the other ways..." :) -- April (chucking another opinion onto the pile)