Обсуждение: PostgreSQL moderation report: 2009-6-16
PostgreSQL.org moderation report - 2009-6-16 13:57:0. There are 40 documentation comment(s) requiring moderation. There are 7 event(s) requiring moderation. There are 2 news item(s) requiring moderation. There are 1 organisation(s) requiring moderation. There are 2 professional service(s) requiring moderation. Moderators; please check and moderate these items as soon as possible!
webmaster@postgresql.org writes:
> PostgreSQL.org moderation report - 2009-6-16 13:57:0.
> There are 40 documentation comment(s) requiring moderation.
> There are 7 event(s) requiring moderation.
> There are 2 news item(s) requiring moderation.
> There are 1 organisation(s) requiring moderation.
> There are 2 professional service(s) requiring moderation.
> Moderators; please check and moderate these items as soon as possible!
Why is this being sent to the -www list?
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > webmaster@postgresql.org writes: >> PostgreSQL.org moderation report - 2009-6-16 13:57:0. >> There are 40 documentation comment(s) requiring moderation. >> There are 7 event(s) requiring moderation. >> There are 2 news item(s) requiring moderation. >> There are 1 organisation(s) requiring moderation. >> There are 2 professional service(s) requiring moderation. > >> Moderators; please check and moderate these items as soon as possible! > > Why is this being sent to the -www list? To coax/shame the moderators that obviously aren't listening on the moderation list into clearing the queue. It runs twice a week, and will only send an email if there is anything outstanding. Which hopefully, will rarely be the case. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Why is this being sent to the -www list?
> To coax/shame the moderators that obviously aren't listening on the
> moderation list into clearing the queue.
So the rest of us have to start filtering junk from our -www
subscription? Please undo this.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Why is this being sent to the -www list? > >> To coax/shame the moderators that obviously aren't listening on the >> moderation list into clearing the queue. > > 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, where the idea of having a message to this list was one of the only new and possibly useful ideas floated. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> webmaster@postgresql.org writes: >>> PostgreSQL.org moderation report - 2009-6-16 13:57:0. >>> There are 40 documentation comment(s) requiring moderation. >>> There are 7 event(s) requiring moderation. >>> There are 2 news item(s) requiring moderation. >>> There are 1 organisation(s) requiring moderation. >>> There are 2 professional service(s) requiring moderation. >>> Moderators; please check and moderate these items as soon as possible! >> Why is this being sent to the -www list? > > To coax/shame the moderators that obviously aren't listening on the > moderation list into clearing the queue. It runs twice a week, and > will only send an email if there is anything outstanding. Which > hopefully, will rarely be the case. Not having looked at the script (though I expect it's in svn, even though the activity mail has been broken for a long time there *cough*), would it be possible to have it only send it if there are things overdue? I realize there's a bunch of things overdue now, but in theory it could be a comment added 5 minutes before the script ran - with nobody having a chance to send it. Or perhaps it already does this, and this just shows I was too lazy to check? -- Magnus HaganderSelf: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > Not having looked at the script (though I expect it's in svn, even > though the activity mail has been broken for a long time there *cough*), > would it be possible to have it only send it if there are things > overdue? I realize there's a bunch of things overdue now, but in theory > it could be a comment added 5 minutes before the script ran - with > nobody having a chance to send it. That should be easy to check for news, comments and events. What do you define as 'overdue'? 2 days? 3? Other record types don't have submission timestamps at the moment. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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.
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.
(If you wanted actual shame, how about a report saying "so-and-so
hasn't done any moderation work in X weeks"?)
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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
Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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. > > 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. Agreed. The core problem is that moderators have to dig through tons of spam/duplicates/cross-posting to do anything meaningful, and they are resigning under that load. Address that core issue; shaming is not going to help anyone. Case in point --- I resubscribed to the press@postgresql.org mailing list to help assist people, but there is so much spam that my spamasassin baynes filter now considers all press@ email to be spam so I don't see it anymore. Hopefully if a legitimate press email arrives, spamasassin will let it through, but I doubt it. So I tried to help, but will not actually help much. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Thursday, June 18, 2009, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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. >> >> 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. > > Agreed. The core problem is that moderators have to dig through tons of > spam/duplicates/cross-posting to do anything meaningful, and they are > resigning under that load. Address that core issue; shaming is not > going to help anyone. There is zero spam - we're not talking about list moderation. /D -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Honestly, as a moderator, none of these discussions are motivating. IMHO the report helps. And I don't care if it comes via -slaves or -www. gb.- On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Bruce Momjian<bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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. >> >> 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. > > Agreed. The core problem is that moderators have to dig through tons of > spam/duplicates/cross-posting to do anything meaningful, and they are > resigning under that load. Address that core issue; shaming is not > going to help anyone. > > Case in point --- I resubscribed to the press@postgresql.org mailing > list to help assist people, but there is so much spam that my > spamasassin baynes filter now considers all press@ email to be spam so I > don't see it anymore. Hopefully if a legitimate press email arrives, > spamasassin will let it through, but I doubt it. So I tried to help, > but will not actually help much. > > -- > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + > > -- > Sent via pgsql-www mailing list (pgsql-www@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www >
> > Agreed. The core problem is that moderators have to dig through tons of > > spam/duplicates/cross-posting to do anything meaningful, and they are > > resigning under that load. Address that core issue; shaming is not > > going to help anyone. > > There is zero spam - we're not talking about list moderation. I think a decision like this should be left to the moderators. I don't mind the report. Joshua D. Drake > > /D > > -- > Dave Page > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com > -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
Dave Page wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > >> Not having looked at the script (though I expect it's in svn, even >> though the activity mail has been broken for a long time there *cough*), >> would it be possible to have it only send it if there are things >> overdue? I realize there's a bunch of things overdue now, but in theory >> it could be a comment added 5 minutes before the script ran - with >> nobody having a chance to send it. > > That should be easy to check for news, comments and events. What do > you define as 'overdue'? 2 days? 3? 3 I think is pretty reasonable, if someone is away over a weekend or something like that. > Other record types don't have submission timestamps at the moment. Something to add in the future, but one thing at a time :-) -- Magnus HaganderSelf: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/