In article <[log in to unmask]>, Chris Barnes
<[log in to unmask]> says:
>
>On Thu, 6 Jun 1996 20:42:40 GMT Daniel A. NortonTRAI said:
>>Chris Barnes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>We don't want to simply have all the errors go to everyone.  We actually
>>>want them divided.  Is this do-able?
>>
>>Yeah, except that error messages that originated from the same site
>>you'd want to all go to the same person, right?
>
>That would be excellent, but I wasn't going to push my luck.... ;-)
 
I believe that dymanically rotating the duties is going to result
in more total work being done as co-error-handlers are going to
be working on the same problem and stepping on each others
virtual toes.
 
Even as a single error-handler, I sometimes step on my own toes
(ouch!).
 
Perhaps Peered Lists would be a better technological solution
(though I don't recall if peers are being ported into the new
world).  Or perhaps a error-handling-superivsor (real person)
hands them off to appropriate personnel?
 
--  co-owner:   INFOSYS, TQM-L, CPARK-L, ERAPPA-L, JANITORS, LDBASE-L, et -L
URL:mailto:[log in to unmask]                       "BEEP if you luv LDBASE"