[Mod-discuss] Re: one last issue from my side

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

I am not entirely sure we can get three, fwiw.

Eliot

On 10.09.2025 10:28, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>
> +1, indicating that we are at least aiming for a minimum of 5 seems 
> better to me.  I suspect that it may even help recruit people, because 
> they perceive that the work will be shared amongst more people.
>
> Kind regards,
> Rob
>
> *From: *John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 9 September 2025 at 21:40
> *To: *Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>, 
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[Mod-discuss] Re: one last issue from my side
>
> This seems to be the better solution.  I think there are several good
> reasons for aspiring to 5 or so rather than ending up with a
> too-small team.  If the goal of 5 cannot be met, the moderation team
> moves forward with the smaller number and we start a review of what
> insufficient qualified volunteers means for the plan and the longer
> run.   If we say "at least 3", we are (however unintentionally)
> encouraging giving up on pushing harder for volunteers if only three
> qualified ones can be easily found.
>
>   john
>
> --On Wednesday, September 10, 2025 08:27 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > I think I already suggested adding a weasel words such as
> > "preferably at least 5".
> >
> > Regards/Ngā mihi
> >     Brian Carpenter
> >
> > On 10-Sep-25 06:41, Eliot Lear wrote:
> >> I mentioned this in an earlier message, but I think I want to just
> >> call this out.  I think trying to get 5 moderators at the
> >> beginning is a bit too much.  I propose that we reduce that
> >> number to "at least 3".
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mod-discuss mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mod-discuss mailing list [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]