"peer review" style of moderation

[Plu festu, uloj]

Dick Dunn talks about a "reviewer" strategy to help out moderators.

Good idea, but still has a single point of failure.

A better way would be to have multiple moderators - each moderator gets
a copy of each submission.  If the moderator thinks it's worth sending out,
s/he drops a copy onto the newsgroup ****using a modified copy of the
original message-id**** [<- yo, important point there]. 

You might ask "What does this buy us?  Multiple copies of messages in
the newsgroup?" By using a *modified copy* of the original message-id,
for example, if the original message-id of the submission mail message
was "<123456 at mintaka.bedford.com>", the modified message-id of the
posted message would be something like
"<comp.unix.sources-123456 at mintaka.bedford.com>".  Thus, if multiple
moderators posted the same message, the news software would reject the
posting as a duplicate, as it would already have a message by that
message-id in its history database.

What this means is that if two moderators send out a copy of the same
source posting, some folks will see the posting as coming from one
moderator [and set of paths] and others will see it as coming from a
different moderator, by a different route.

In this scheme, so long as all the moderators don't get sick or go on
vacation at once, someone will take up the slack and postings will
continue to appear.

Simple, neat, elegant.

--
Andrew Scott Beals
abeals at autodesk.com