Return-Path: 
 <forrest-dev-return-7995-apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 75227 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2003 13:28:15 -0000
Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12)
  by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Oct 2003 13:28:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 66329 invoked by uid 500); 27 Oct 2003 13:28:12 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 66238 invoked by uid 500); 27 Oct 2003 13:28:11 -0000
Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:forrest-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:forrest-dev@xml.apache.org>
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 66227 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2003 13:28:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO pulse.betaversion.org) (217.158.110.65)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Oct 2003 13:28:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 1786 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2003 13:28:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO apache.org) (stefano@80.105.91.155)
  by pulse.betaversion.org with SMTP; 27 Oct 2003 13:28:05 -0000
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:28:30 +0100
Subject: Re: [proposal] Doco
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
From: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org>
To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <1067214931.10177.188187.camel@ighp>
Message-Id: <74940CC4-0881-11D8-9B88-000393D2CB02@apache.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N


On Monday, Oct 27, 2003, at 01:35 Europe/Rome, David Crossley wrote:

> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>> Steven Noels wrote:
>>> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> <snip what="stuff about wiki vandalism and annoyance"/>
>>
>> Different would be to have "f**k [insert your favorite public figure
>> here]" or child pornography passing thru the system, but in order to
>> happen, the chain of events that should happen are:
>>
>>   1) somebody does that kind of vandalism (so far, happened only a few
>> times)
>>   2) a moderator sends "reply-to" instead of "reply-to-all" and *NO
>> OTHER MODERATOR* does anything (the probability of this event is, IMO,
>> already rare, redundancy of moderation should also reduce errors)
>
> Unless i am mistaken, when there are multiple moderators then the
> first moderation action wins and subsequent actions have no effect.
> Redundancy of moderators just ensures that multiple people are always
> watching.

Not if moderation requires a lazy consensus approach, say at least 3 +1 
and no -1. WDYT?

--
Stefano.