> we have a situation where the desired behavior is for
> *every message* regardless of origin to be submitted to *every
> moderator* every time.
>
> While we were running 1.8 the subscriber option REVIEW on those listed
> as Moderators (they were NOT listed as Editors, they were ONLY
> Moderators) produced the needed result (...)
>
> If the definition of "Moderator= All," can't be adjusted to mean
> exactly what it literally says, then I would like to see some new syntax
> introduced that does in fact mean every message from any source will be
> presented to every moderator.
Let me first clarify the distinction between editor and moderator, and the
meaning of "Moderator= All":
- An EDITOR is a person authorized to post to a moderated list. By post I
mean cause the message to be actually posted to the list.
- A MODERATOR is an EDITOR who has been tasked with reviewing submissions
from list members and deciding what to do with them.
- MODERATOR and EDITOR have the exact same privileges. The difference
between the two is that the EDITOR does not receive incoming submissions
from list members unless he is also a MODERATOR.
- If there are multiple moderators, LISTSERV will normally split the work
between them. As submissions are received, they are sent to the next
moderator in a round-robin fashion. This behaviour is optimal in the case of
a very large list where there are many submissions, or where the submissions
must be reviewed very carefully (perhaps they are academic papers and it
takes 30 min to decide what to do with them). Because each submission is
only sent to one person, there is no duplication of effort.
- Of course, there are cases where this is not the desired behaviour.
"Moderator= All,..." tells LISTSERV to send every submission to every
moderator. In this scenario, every moderator can approve or reject every
submission. The word "All" refers to the moderators, not to the messages.
One could also envision a future extension along the lines of "Moderator=
Two,..." where LISTSERV would send each message to two moderators, to
minimize the risk that one of them is out to lunch. Either way, the purpose
of the "Moderator=" keyword is to define *who* receives submissions to the
list. The "Send=" keyword defines which messages are to be treated as
submissions, and which are to be posted immediately.
I think the feature you suggested would be generally useful. It would
probably take the form of a new "Send=" option, perhaps "Send=
Editor,Self-Review", to indicate that messages coming from editors also have
to go through the moderation cycle. Alternatively, "Send=
Editor,Peer-Review" could mandate that the message be sent to a different
moderator for approval (in cases where you don't want to allow any one
person to make a posting decision). The only challenge I see is that
LISTSERV will always post a message from a bona fide editor that is marked
as having been confirmed (because the review process is implemented as a
confirmation by an authorized editor). This should not be an issue for
"Send= Editor" but for the case where you have, say, "Send= Private,Confirm"
and the moderation process is activated because someone is set to REVIEW. An
editor set to REVIEW would first have to confirm the message, like any other
member, at which point LISTSERV would decide to moderate it, because of the
combination of REVIEW and of the new self-review option. But this moderation
would be considered completed because the message is already confirmed by an
editor. That is, the editor would not have to confirm it twice, even though
that is what the list header says.
Eric
|
