Re: Stalled news about ora2pg 11 on pg.org - Mailing list pgsql-www
From | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Stalled news about ora2pg 11 on pg.org |
Date | |
Msg-id | CABUevExzutQiWf++WqkUgh5Jr9+JU2akf1L1FWvP+HGsWbbGeA@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Stalled news about ora2pg 11 on pg.org ("Jonathan S. Katz" <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Stalled news about ora2pg 11 on pg.org
Re: Stalled news about ora2pg 11 on pg.org |
List | pgsql-www |
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Jonathan S. Katz <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> wrote: > On Apr 15, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:52:54PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2ndQuadrant has experienced significant delays in at least 3 cases >>>>>>> also. There is definitely a problem somewhere there. >>>>>> >>>>>> The delay is called "volunteer moderators who have day jobs". >>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps we should make all posts wait the same length of time, to >>>>>>> allow reasonable time to decide whether posts are suitable? 72 hours >>>>>>> seems like a reasonable time for this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Who is going to do this strictly time-limited approving? >>>>> >>>>> So it auto-approves after 72 hours? I found this proposal vague. >>>> >>>> If anything automatic were to happen after 72 hours, the reasonable >>>> thing would be a rejection. >>> >>> ... but that's not more helpful than not doing anything, because then >>> the submitter needs to submit again. This creates a busy loop on which >>> submitter needs to watch status of his submitted news until it gets >>> approved. >> >> I agree. But it's the only thing we could do at all there. >> >> >>> I think the idea behind 72-hour auto-approve is that if it's obvious >>> spam someone will quickly reject it, and if it's not spam then it's not >>> worth rejecting. I don't think this is very palatable either. >> >> Given thta our moderators *clearly* don't have time to process it, >> this is almost *guarantee* to get spam postings onto our site. It >> won't work. >> >> I think recruiting more moderators, or somehow convincing our current >> ones to actually moderate more often is the only way to go. > > If helping to alleviate some of the delay issues would be to have more moderators, I would be happy to volunteer my time. We can certainly do with more moderators. Unless there are any objections, I think adding Jonathan would be a good idea? > Perhaps another initiative (though this is a tech suggestion) is to send a daily digest of news stories awaiting approvalto the moderators so that way there is a constant reminder to review news items. This is something we already do, since many years back. --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/