Wayne, Could you clarify the extent of moderation?
That is, you highlighted Eddy as the Admin - but that's the Bylaws Section 6.2. Gerv's concern seems to be about reviewing spam queues, approving messages, adding/removing subscribers. Is that something you (or Dean) find yourself using? It's not something I've seen configured on any of the CA/B Forum Mailman instances (namely, hold for moderation), but is something that Mozilla has configured for their messages. That was the context and substance of what I was replying to Gerv about - that is, there's a mailing-list-admin function (of which I believe only GoDaddy has administrative access to mailman), and then there's the procedural question (which I believe you're responding to). There's no new procedural requirements, so this is presumably only a question about the actual administrative function of the mail list. As to Dean's point, the fact that we don't have a spam problem on the questions@ list, or hold for moderation, is why I don't think it's a substantive concern. On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Dean Coclin <dean_coc...@symantec.com> wrote: > I’m currently responding to questions as best I can. We haven’t had much > volume on that list though. > > > Dean > > > > *From:* Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] * On Behalf Of *Wayne > Thayer via Public > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:16 PM > *To:* Ryan Sleevi <sle...@google.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion > List <public@cabforum.org>; Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org> > *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension > > > > >>I do not believe that's not been a concern of any Forum mailing list to > date, because that's now how the Forum has operated its mailing lists. > > > > This is precisely how the Forum operates its lists – questions@ in > particular, but all the others as well. And while Eddy Nigg was the > long-time questions@ list admin, there is currently no one who really > owns the task of monitoring the questions list in a timely fashion (and I > suspect that timely moderation is quite important for this new list that’s > being proposed). I am currently doing a lot of the moderation but am > transitioning the work to Ben, which I believe supports the point that Gerv > is making. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Wayne > > > > *From: *Public <public-boun...@cabforum.org> on behalf of Ryan Sleevi via > Public <public@cabforum.org> > *Reply-To: *Ryan Sleevi <sle...@google.com>, CA/Browser Forum Public > Discussion List <public@cabforum.org> > *Date: *Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 9:54 AM > *To: *Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org> > *Cc: *CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org> > *Subject: *Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org> > wrote: > > On 11/10/17 17:39, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > > What do you believe requires looking after? Spam? Substance? Access? > > Mailing lists don't manage themselves. Says someone who manages six and > has to clear the spam queues daily. > > > > So your concern is a message being held for moderation and requiring > manual review? > > > > I do not believe that's not been a concern of any Forum mailing list to > date, because that's now how the Forum has operated its mailing lists. > > > > Would that address your concern? >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public