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"