Re: [off-topic, but not by ukcrypto standards] ukcrypto-moderated pre-moderators needed

[Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

John R T Brazier wrote:
> > > > Ben Laurie wrote 
> > > > OK, since my previous attempt to create a lower volume
> > > > ukcrypto-like-thing failed, I have concluded that the only way to
> > > > handle the problem is to produce a moderated version of ukcrypto. I
> > > > know for sure there's demand for this, but I also know that the
> > > > volume is too high for traditional moderation methods (at least too
> > > > high for _me_ to use traditional moderation).
> > >
> > > Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> > > I have a question. What do you think is on topic?
> > >
> > > The original charter, as I understand it, was to discuss UK
> > > legislation relating to cryptography - which is fine, but very little
> > > is happening in that area right now, and there would be virtually no
> > > posts. 
> >
> > Ben Laurie wrote: 
> > I would include privacy and anonymity as well as cryptography. I'm
> > open to persuasion for other topics. 
> >
> > Killing time isn't one of them.
>
>
> Super idea, which should allow people who wish to follow the list without
> grubbing through all the noise.
>
> However, it would be useful to know what would be included and what would be
> excluded. The pre-moderators would need this, for a start, otherwise the
> thing will get inconsistent.

I do intend to attempt to make that clear. In practice I do not think it 
is possible to 100% define a moderation policy.

> Another question occurs. Is the point of this solely to reduce time? If so,
> why not just take a list that randomly samples a certain percentage of UK
> Crypto posts? This would allow people to get the gist, and I suspect overall
> information loss would be small.

I sincerely doubt that. But feel free. I'm not going to do it.

> Peter Fairbrother, in his analysis, also gave me a pointer: he has already
> found a solution to the volume problem. I have a similar one - I refer to it
> as my 'drivel filter'. I suspect many others on this list have also reached
> similar pragmatic strategies (and a comparison of them might be both
> interesting and illuminating). However, would these people migrate to the
> new list if they've already got a solution? The way the movement to the ID
> list was minimal would imply not.

It is a strategy I have also considered.

> It seems to me that UK Crypto has simply taken on a more roving commission
> as compared to its original remit. When the Government is legislating
> crypto, then the list is usually very on-topic. When the government isn't,
> then the list feels free to widen its interest. Whilst difficult to define,
> I think it does tend to stay in the areas of privacy, security, government
> legislation, misuse of powers, anonymity, freedoms, the odd excursion into
> technology, and so forth. It's a bit hard to define, but I detect a fairly
> consistent set of topics within this list. Is this what we want? It appears
> that the list is currently very popular.

I certainly think that many of the topics discussed are appropriate for 
a moderated list, definitely including the above.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
ApacheCon! 13-17 November! http://www.apachecon.com/

http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff