On 06 May at 16:29, andrew clarke of 3:635/728.4{at}fidonet wrote to Chris Maddock:

ac> 26 Apr 97 08:06, Chris Maddock (3:640/302) wrote to Andrew Clarke:

>> How about whomever is the "Main Developer" being the
Official Moderator ?

ac> MSGED_ECHO has never needed moderating as far as I can recall, but if 
ac> having a moderator is a requirement of the Z1 echolist then it's probably a 
ac> good idea to have one.  

Well, to that end I am it.  I've been holding it in trust fer a
while now with no probs. I'll do it til doomsday if necassary.

>> I can look after the Z1 Elisting in trust - it gets updated every 3 
>> months. No charge.  I can even still post the obligatory posting 
>> once per month. 

What I was referring to was your request that a certain subject not be
mentioned or discussed here. A valid request IMO, and my thought was that
the "main developer" should have a say on what is discussed here
in such instances.

I dunno, it doesn't really matter but it could to you if someone is
determined to cause disruption - which I hasten to point out hasn't
happened.

What I was suggesting was that the current "main developer" (you)
be put on the Z1 Elist and also the Z3 Elist as the "official"
Moderator. 
My suggestion was that I put you there until such time that you cease being
the Main developer and someone else is.
In the meantime, I will remain the holder of the Z1 Elist and be the
UnModerator  - quite happily as I have been.

In fact, the Z1 Elist procedures point out that the holder of same is not
=necessarily= the Moderator !  Although it is universally accepted
that the Elist holder *is* the Moderator.

I'm quite happy, in fact, Rapt! at the co-operation in this echo. It is
wonderful to see and shows that it =can= be done.

If you feel that you want the status-quo to remain, I'm quite Okay on that too.

 Doesn't worry me either way.

Regards,
Chris Maddock
chrism{at}softtech.brisnet.org.au

--- Msged/386 4.20 beta 2