In message <20010424141619-r01010600-e1311c61@38.32.10.190>
"D. Kirkpatrick" <nat@tiac.net> wrote:
[snip]
> He's my limited vision.
The changes you've mentioned here don't actually make any real improvements
to the current situation in terms of the problems we're currently seeing.
It has no advantages in terms of the jobs the moderation team have to do, so
would offer no benefit in terms of the time taken to process submissions.
Abandoned or non-posted FAQs are already flagged by our cleanup scripts, and
brought to our attention.
And it won't make my coffee for me ;-)
The FAQ server posted successfully today. I examined the source and found out
why it was generating the errors we were seeing, and informed the other
moderators of this, although I didn't have time to try to fix it at that
moment. So I'm not sure whether one of the other moderators took this action
or whether it cured itself, as computers are wont to do :-)
The general problems we are seeing at the moment /will/ resolve themselves.
The long backlog is being gradually cleared and submissions sent using the
FAQ checker are being processed almost immediately.
Cheers,
Nick
-- If cryptography is outlawed, only outlaws wifo4(F9%!98f3((hg$;'da"d;f+************************************************************* To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here *************************************************************
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved