page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (03/09/88)
karl@sugar.UUCP (Karl Lehenbauer) wrote: >What I'm thinking here is that maybe Commodore could do some similar >thing, giving the "Commodore well behaved seal of approval" to programs >that had passed some kind of test suite. Well, CBM won't do this (in my opinion), but it's a GREAT idea. USENET is probably the largest Amiga user group in the world. By Brian Reid's estimate, there are over 13,000 readers of this group alone. That's not counting articles reposted to other networks, bulletin boards, newsletters, etc. We can (and should) do something with this. One thing is to provide products a "USENET seal of approval," which means the product passed all the tests specified. Since there are a lot of packages around, and a lot of people with a lot of different configurations, this should be easy to do. What would it take? Somebody needs to coordinate the testing, by identifying people with unique configurations and/or specialists in particular fields (like performance analysis, user interface, etc). It also requires that manufacturers desire this testing be done on their products, and that they be willing to provide some number of copies to the testers. In return, they get to use the "USENET seal of approval" in their advertisements. Given enough serious tests, this can easily become something that manufactures desire, as it will show them problems with their program (great for beta-testing) and will become the standard by which all other programs are tested. End-users will be assured that the package works on their configuration and is otherwise well-behaved. I think the coordination of this could take a lot of work. I really like the idea, and have a LOT of items that can be tested (I've been keeping a list for some time now; I knew it would come in handy some day), but don't know if I have the time to coordinate the testing and dealing with the vendors. Comments? ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page "I don't know such stuff. I just do eyes." -- from 'Blade Runner'
lel@wuphys.UUCP (Lyle E. Levine) (03/10/88)
In article <5329@swan.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: >karl@sugar.UUCP (Karl Lehenbauer) wrote: >>What I'm thinking here is that maybe Commodore could do some similar >>thing, giving the "Commodore well behaved seal of approval" to programs >>that had passed some kind of test suite. > >Well, CBM won't do this (in my opinion), but it's a GREAT idea. > >We can (and should) do something with this. One thing is to provide >products a "USENET seal of approval," which means the product passed > >What would it take? Somebody needs to coordinate the testing, by >identifying people with unique configurations and/or specialists >in particular fields (like performance analysis, user interface, etc). >It also requires that manufacturers desire this testing be done on >their products, and that they be willing to provide some number of >copies to the testers. > >Comments? > I like the idea a lot. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt it will happen. And if it does, people probably won't pay the "seal" much attention. However, if anyone starts such a thing, I'd be willing to at least be a tester. I'm sick of obvious bugs in poorly written commercial software! It sounds like this would just be beta testing on a slightly larger scale. ========== IBM is a Division of Sirius Cybernetics Corporation "their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws." - "So Long And Thanks For All The Fish" Lyle Levine: Paths -> ihnp4!wuphys!lel uunet!wucs!wuphys!lel
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (03/10/88)
I think Bob Pages idea for a "UseNet seal of Approval" (a spinnoff of
Karl Lehenbauer's original C= seal of Approval idea) is a great idea.
Pehaps we should collect some initial funds (we UseNetters' can afford
to mail in two to five bucks can't we?) and use these to solicit more funds
from publishers and distributors. With these we could hire someone to
coordinate things.
Is this unrealistic?
Thanks,
Wade.
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex
ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil
INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COMfoy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (03/16/88)
In article <2653@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: > >to mail in two to five bucks can't we?) and use these to solicit more funds >from publishers and distributors. With these we could hire someone to >coordinate things. > > Is this unrealistic? > It suits me. I would be very glad to contribute. Richard The opinions and money are my own.
ain@s.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White) (03/16/88)
In article <5329@swan.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: >We can (and should) do something with this. One thing is to provide >products a "USENET seal of approval," which means the product passed >all the tests specified. Since there are a lot of packages around, >and a lot of people with a lot of different configurations, this >should be easy to do. An interesting concept, but perhaps impractical... judging from the number of submissions we moderators get (admittedly only "PD"), there would probably have to be a crew of about 10-20 part-time testers, or 4-8 full time ones... To give a few numbers of what just moderating the PD stuff that gets sent to us is like, we have 1.5M of compressed stuff that needs to be tested and posted, and another 400K uncompressed sitting in my mail box waiting for me to see it. There is probably more commercial software than PD being written, and any such procedures will take much longer than downloading and test running the code (for us, if it seems to do what it claims to and doesn't GURU, we post it). I would like to see such a "seal of approval", but know the whole idea will fall flat if the amount of software to be tested isn't estimated accurately when everything is set up. -- Pat White (co-moderator comp.sources/binaries.amiga) UUCP: k.cc.purdue.edu!ain BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM PHONE: (317) 743-8421 U.S. Mail: 320 Brown St. apt. 406, West Lafayette, IN 47906
suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) (03/20/88)
In article <2653@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: > Pehaps we should collect some initial funds (we UseNetters' can afford >to mail in two to five bucks can't we?) and use these to solicit more funds >from publishers and distributors. With these we could hire someone to >coordinate things. > > Is this unrealistic? > Thanks, > Wade. Well, To start off with, let's say that company XXX donates $1,000 and asks that their latest piece of software undergo the USENET seal of approval. Let us also assume that they include a letter with the donation and the software which says something like: We are looking forward to your review and the efforts of your organization. Depending on our earnings in the upcoming months, we plan to support your efforts. Get the picture? How can this group be impartial if it accepts donations from manufacturers and softare houses? /ken Kenneth Suh PATH: suh@CUNIXC.COLUMBIA.EDU 312 McBain Hall, C/O Carman Hall SY.SUH@CU20B.BITNET Columbia University ..!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!suh New York, NY 10027
shimoda@rmi.UUCP (Markus Schmidt) (03/20/88)
In article <27253@aero.ARPA> foy@aero.UUCP (Richard Foy) writes: : In article <2653@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: : > : >to mail in two to five bucks can't we?) and use these to solicit more funds : >from publishers and distributors. With these we could hire someone to : >coordinate things. : > : > Is this unrealistic? : > : : It suits me. I would be very glad to contribute. : Yeah suits me too, but I fear that it might be like with the messages: 100\.000 reading, 1% writing (or contributing). C u Markus |._,| - - ==O== Never trust a smiling cat `-' (shimoda@rmi.UUCP)
schein@cbmvax.UUCP (Dan Schein CATS) (03/23/88)
In article <498@cunixc.columbia.edu> suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) writes: >In article <2653@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >> Pehaps we should collect some initial funds (we UseNetters' can afford >>to mail in two to five bucks can't we?) and use these to solicit more funds >>from publishers and distributors. With these we could hire someone to >>coordinate things. >> >> Is this unrealistic? >> Thanks, >> Wade. > > >Well, > >To start off with, let's say that company XXX donates $1,000 and asks >that their latest piece of software undergo the USENET seal of approval. >Let us also assume that they include a letter with the donation and the >software which says something like: > > We are looking forward to your review and the efforts of your > organization. Depending on our earnings in the upcoming months, > we plan to support your efforts. > >Get the picture? How can this group be impartial if it accepts >donations from manufacturers and softare houses? > > >Kenneth Suh PATH: suh@CUNIXC.COLUMBIA.EDU I think Ken has a very GOOD point here, (Even though I could use a extra $1,000 here and there :-). So whats the answer? A group of total self supported soles who are willing to donate their spare time? Hmmm....... I may be on to something here..... -- Dan Schein uucp: {ihnp4|allegra|burdvax|rutgers}!cbmvax!schein Commodore AMIGA ARPANET: cbmvax!schein@uunet.uu.net 1200 Wilson Drive Bix: dschein Plink: Dan*CATS West Chester PA 19380 phone: (215) 431-9100 ext. 9542 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ All spelling mistakes are a result of my efforts to avoid education :-) +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I help Commodore by supporting the AMIGA. Commodore supports me by allowing me to form my own suggestions and comments.
page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (03/24/88)
Well, looks like I got some attention. haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) wrote: >Pehaps we should collect some initial funds suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) asks: >How can this group be impartial if it accepts donations from >manufacturers and softare houses? schein@cbmvax.UUCP (Dan Schein CATS) adds: >So whats the answer? A group of total self supported soles who are >willing to donate their spare time? Hmmm....... Let me give you my view. No money is involved AT ALL. What needs to happen: 1. We (comp.sys.amiga) come up with an exhaustive list of items to test. Objective things, like "does it work with fast ram" not subjective things like "are the screen colors nice". 2. People who can test particular items (people with fast ram, 68020's, flickerfixer, PaintJet printers, whatever) with respect to hardware questions, do so. Likewise for people with particular software items (v1.1 compatibility (?), works with Csh/WShell/AmigaShell/Make/ConMan/ARexx etc). The exact list of requirements depends on the kinds of things we hope to test for. 3. It requires vendors to supply enough copies of the package so that everyone that does testing (there only need be a handful of people) get a copy. We can even shuttle around a couple of copies between testers, but the test results (thus the 'seal of approval') will be delayed somewhat. 4. It requires one person to contact vendors (or have vendors contact if this catches on), distribute and collect the products to/from the testers, coordinate the testing, produce the results, and publish them as far and wide as possible. So why would anyone want to be the coordinator? Just for fame and glory. Just to see the latest and greatest products. Just to make the Amiga software market a little more stable. Just to help the Amiga community by providing a service that Amigans can have confidence in. Just to be the next 'Fred Fish' of the Amiga world. Have I got you interested? So why would manufacturers want to participate? They probably wouldn't. At least not at first. I suspect we'd reject more than 50% of the available Amiga software currently available. However, if we give them (post, whatever) the tests we use, they can test their products BEFORE they hand them over to us. As I said in an earlier posting, comp.sys.amiga probably represents the largest Amiga user group in existance. We should use that clout. Also, we don't need vendors to start. We can start with the popular packages (software on the WorkBench disk, C compilers, public domain programs, Dpaint, Soundscape, DMCS, Marauder, lots more) and test them. As more and more pass (or fail), Amigans will sit up and say "hey, this looks like a valuable service." As they do, they'll start to ask commercial vendors - "Is this product good enough that it can obtain the USENET seal of approval?" If we do a good job, the Amiga community will come to respect this "independent testing lab", and the vendors will want to point out that their products have indeed obtained the "USENET seal of approval." A snowball effect. It's not important that a coordinator be chosen now. Why don't we come up with a specific list of things to test (as well as specific ways in which to test them). I'll keep the list. ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page "Nicaragua" is Spanish for "Vietnam."
mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) (03/24/88)
[just whatever became of the Commodore "LCD" anyway?] After reading thru the stacks and stacks of postings regarding our favorite net, and a seal-of-approval, one thought glommed onto my cortext like a Vulcan.nerve.pinch: how many amigazoids know what USENET really is? Huh? Right now I'd expect a USENET SoA would be about as useful as a label like "this software package has recieved the official Hilda Grimly Seal-of-Approval". Big deal. If this bird flies we should make some sort of effort at getting pr for USENET in the common Amiga rags, and to the user's groups. Perhaps C= might be willing to issue a press-release to that effect as well. It would have to explain both about the Net, and list the criteria for testing. Also, it would be nice to get some agreements from the companies so they might be willing to ask our thoughts on packages before release. I know, that's what Beta testers are supposed to be for, but from experiance, one really needs both "average" users AND developer types to make a well-rounded product. The whole idea is good, but needs a little more of a foundation then originally conceived. -- *** mike (Cyberpunk in training) smithwick *** "live long and multi-task" [discalimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
joe@lakesys.UUCP (Joe Pantuso) (03/24/88)
In article <3496@cbmvax.UUCP> schein@cbmvax.UUCP (Dan Schein CATS) writes: >In article <498@cunixc.columbia.edu> suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) writes: >>In article <2653@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >>> Pehaps we should collect some initial funds (we UseNetters' can afford >>>to mail in two to five bucks can't we?) and use these to solicit more funds >>>from publishers and distributors. With these we could hire someone to >>>coordinate things. >>> >>> Is this unrealistic? >>> Thanks, >>> Wade. >> >> >>Well, >> >>To start off with, let's say that company XXX donates $1,000 and asks >>that their latest piece of software undergo the USENET seal of approval. >>Let us also assume that they include a letter with the donation and the >>software which says something like: >> >> We are looking forward to your review and the efforts of your >> organization. Depending on our earnings in the upcoming months, >> we plan to support your efforts. >> >>Get the picture? How can this group be impartial if it accepts >>donations from manufacturers and softare houses? >> >> >>Kenneth Suh PATH: suh@CUNIXC.COLUMBIA.EDU > > I think Ken has a very GOOD point here, (Even though I could use a extra > $1,000 here and there :-). So whats the answer? A group of total self > supported soles who are willing to donate their spare time? Hmmm....... > I may be on to something here..... >-- > Dan Schein uucp: {ihnp4|allegra|burdvax|rutgers}!cbmvax!schein > Commodore AMIGA ARPANET: cbmvax!schein@uunet.uu.net You are over-looking a very plausable way to make it work. Have a standard fee for a review. We're talking $100-$200 only. I would be more than willing to coordinate this effort in my *free time*. (As a matter of fact if this gets off the ground I sure want to be in on some aspect of it). I missed the origional article that is alluded to by the first message above, but I assume you mean to have items reviewed by *impartial* people and then placed on the net. I'd love to run this. I'd kill to run this. An initial amount would have to be spent to cover postage informing companies of the existence of this new entity, but from there on it could be run by itself. Here's the scenario: This months topic will be paint programs, so then every company and software house would be informed of this- This months review topic is paint programs, if you wish your product to be reviewed please submit it and the $100 reviewers fee by the nth of monthx. (Then disclaimers that the organization is non-profit and the fee only covers postage and time) The company would also have previously recieved the letter explaining the group. So I then receive all these packages, and ship them randomly to the "net reviewers" with their $40 cut of the fee ($10 for shipping, $10 for hardware, $20 for stationary and toner, and $20 for the *hours* spent sending out the letters/sorting stuff/providing you guidlines for the review/being a nice guy-)accounts the other $60. You get the package and have 3 weeks to thrash it to death and then type up a review and send it to me. I would then compile all the data and publish: 1) condensed charts, showing capabilities/prices/manufacturer/etc. Resolutions: Product |320x200......HAM| HB ... Price System ----------------|----------------|-------------------------------- Deluxe Paint II |Yes No | No $150 All Digi-Paint II |Yes Yes| No $199 All Photon Paint |Yes Yes| Yes $190 All Aegis Draw |Yes No | No $99 All etc. 2) Bar charts of performance (Most likely IFF files that you could look at later, but also text ones imbedded) Access Time in MS 40 XXX 35 XXX XXX XXX 30 XXX XXX XXX XXX 25 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 20 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 15 XXX XXX XXX XXX Drive A B C D 3) Each individual report. 4) Plus MUCH MORE! You get the idea... Anyway it would be even better than consumer reports because besides special area studies you could have up to the minute reviews. Company X has a hot new product out, they send me a copy a week before it hits the shelves and whammo, you have a review of it two days before the dealers have it on the shelf. I wanna do it! Besides, it falls right into my degree and the kind of stuff I want to be doing after college. Help out yourself and help out a college student. Support USENET REVIEWS (I just made that up). Think about it, all it would require is your endorsement and a couple bucks. Also some of you would be reviewers, good deal, eh? Disclaimers: I'm dancing as fast as I can. And I plan on doing 90% of the hardware reviews. Also I beleive I would have to buy a laser printer to support the operation, but I would be willing to buy that myself since I'd get to use it too. Let's hear some opinions! (good ones only please :-) -Joe (USENET REVIEWS?) Snail Mail: Real Mail: /// *-------------------* {ihnp4,uwvax}!uwmcsd1!lakesys!joe /// |Joe Pantuso | joe@lakesys.UUCP /// |1631 n. 69 St. | \\\ ///\ _ _ |Wauwatosa WI 53213| "Rascality has it's limits, \\\///__\ |\/| | / _ |_| *-------------------* Stupidity does not."-Napoleon \XX/ \| | | \_/ | |
bmacintyre@watsol.waterloo.edu (Blair MacIntyre) (03/24/88)
In article <5646@swan.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: >Well, looks like I got some attention. > >Let me give you my view. No money is involved AT ALL. What needs to >happen: > > <4 points here :^> > >Have I got you interested? You've got me interested ... I'm tired of programs that aren't well behaved. For me, anyway, being well-behaved in the Multitasking Environment isn't a *bonus*, it's a *requirement* ... if I wanted single-tasking, I would have bought a <insert any other computer here> or, in the very least, I wouldn't have bothered with expansion ram. > < describes why it would work > > >It's not important that a coordinator be chosen now. Why don't we >come up with a specific list of things to test (as well as specific >ways in which to test them). I'll keep the list. How about: - hardware: works on the A5000, A1000, A2000 with minimum ram ( only chip ) ( minimum ram is only a requirement if the manufacturer doesn't state it needs extra ram ), with internal fast ram, with external (read: real) fast ram, with various 680x0 processors. - software: don't NEED to boot with its disk, multitasks well, can be used from any drive ( df0: df1: dh0: vd0: etc ...), can be started from the CLI or Workbench, conforms to the suggested interface ( regarding menus, etc. ), frees all resource. also, any 'Seal of Approval' should state with workbench/kickstart versions it was approved on - the whole scheme would die if a program that has a generic 'S of A' didn't work on the next version of either and we didn't state that it was only tested on, say, 1.3 :-) a funny thing is, programs that have been around a long time and that alot of people think are good ( like Marauder ) could fail the tests ( it doesn't multitask, you need to boot with its' disk, etc ...) 8^) >..Bob >-- >Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page > "Nicaragua" is Spanish for "Vietnam." Lets get this thing going!!! Blair ps. in case you care, I have a A1000 with a Spirit 1.5Meg internal ram expansion and 2 floppies ( hoping for a hard disk, though ... anyone out there have a spare $1.5K or so to lend me ... :-( ) -- ===========================================================================///= Blair MacIntyre (bmacintyre@watsol.waterloo.edu) ( Long live the Amiga!! )/// "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" - Foundation \\\/// =Have you hugged your dragon today??=(how about your SO??)=============\XX/====
waynet@mongo.uucp (Wayne Thompson) (03/25/88)
- -- Pehaps we should collect some initial funds (we UseNetters' can afford
- --to mail in two to five bucks can't we?) and use these to solicit more funds
- --from publishers and distributors. With these we could hire someone to
- --coordinate things.
- --
- -- Is this unrealistic?
- -- Thanks,
- -- Wade.
- -
- -Let us also assume that they include a letter with the donation and the
- -software which says something like:
- -
- - We are looking forward to your review and the efforts of your
- - organization. Depending on our earnings in the upcoming months,
- - we plan to support your efforts.
- -
- -Get the picture? How can this group be impartial if it accepts
- -donations from manufacturers and softare houses?
- -
- -
- -Kenneth Suh PATH: suh@CUNIXC.COLUMBIA.EDU
-
- I think Ken has a very GOOD point here, (Even though I could use a extra
- $1,000 here and there :-). So whats the answer? A group of total self
- supported soles who are willing to donate their spare time? Hmmm.......
- I may be on to something here.....
- --
- Dan Schein uucp: {ihnp4|allegra|burdvax|rutgers}!cbmvax!schein
Incorporate as a non-profit org, appoint a treasurer, preferrably a
Boy Scout ;-), and don't bother the test personell with funding details.
---
..!sun!waynetsuh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) (03/26/88)
In article <2653@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) basically said: {Ask usenetters for donations of time and money. Also, ask} {manufacturers for donation} I replied by asking how the reviews could be impartial with manufacturer donations. In article <3496@cbmvax.UUCP> schein@cbmvax.UUCP (Dan Schein CATS) supported my criticism and stated that the reviews would have to be an impartial volunteer effort In article <535@lakesys.UUCP> joe@lakesys.UUCP (Joe Pantuso) writes: >You are over-looking a very plausable way to make it work. Have a standard >fee for a review. We're talking $100-$200 only. I would be more than willing >to coordinate this effort in my *free time*. (As a matter of fact if this >gets off the ground I sure want to be in on some aspect of it). How many companies would pay to have their product reviewed? You have got to be kidding. I am sure that you would also want sample copies of software and hardware right? In addition, how many small companies can afford this? Let us assume I sell hard disk interfaces to people and the name of my company is STUCK_BETWEEN_TWO_OBJECTS. If it costs $150.00 for me to produce my interface, and you want four or five review copies and a $100 review fee, I would probably go out of business. In addition, let's assume that you only asked for one copy. Would you return it? What if it was damaged while being shipped to four or five people across the country? Don't say that there is one person who has all three Amigas and many other peripherals to try it out with. >So I then receive all these packages, and ship them randomly to the "net >reviewers" with their $40 cut of the fee ($10 for shipping, $10 for hardware, >$20 for stationary and toner, and $20 for the *hours* spent sending out the >letters/sorting stuff/providing you guidlines for the review/being a nice >guy-)accounts the other $60. Well, I like your review formats, etc., but I strongly disagree with randomly shipping out packages to "net reviewers". Many people on the net have their own software companies or work for others. In some cases, they might be impartial, and in others, they might be reviewing a competitor's product. This is a ludicrous suggestion. >Anyway it would be even better than consumer reports because besides >special area studies you could have up to the minute reviews. Company X has a >hot new product out, they send me a copy a week before it hits the shelves and >whammo, you have a review of it two days before the dealers have it on the >shelf. Consumer Reports is recognized as being impartial because they purchase everything they review. In addition, they do not accept advertising or donations from companies. >Disclaimers: I'm dancing as fast as I can. And I plan on doing 90% of the >hardware reviews. Also I beleive I would have to buy a laser printer to >support the operation, but I would be willing to buy that myself since I'd get >to use it too. > >Let's hear some opinions! (good ones only please :-) > >-Joe (USENET REVIEWS?) > > Snail Mail: Real Mail: /// >*-------------------* {ihnp4,uwvax}!uwmcsd1!lakesys!joe /// >|Joe Pantuso | joe@lakesys.UUCP /// >|1631 n. 69 St. | \\\ ///\ _ _ >|Wauwatosa WI 53213| "Rascality has it's limits, \\\///__\ |\/| | / _ |_| >*-------------------* Stupidity does not."-Napoleon \XX/ \| | | \_/ | | Well, you basically have my opinions. I do not think that we should ever solicit funds from companies. If someone want to purchase a laser printer, fine. If that person wishes to donate use of it towards helping out with the reviews great! I still think that this thing can work. Personally, I thought that reviews could be coordinated as follows: Head coordinator | ================================================= | | | | coordinator of coordinator of coordinator of coordinator of CAD stuff MIDI stuff monitors (you get the picture) | | | | ============= ============= ============= ============= reviewers reviewers reviewers reviewers The reviewers would review products that they had purchased. The coordinator for a certain product area would coordinate the reviewers in their respective product areas and put together product reviews based on the work of the reviewers. These product reviews would contain not only a review of the product, but a list of the reviewers. The head coordinator would coordinate the efforts of the coordinators for specific product areas. In addition, this head coordinator would make the postings to USENET. These postings would detail: coordinators are needed new product reviews product reviews available In addition, the head coordinator would maintain the reviews themselves and coordinate sites that would also store them. I would then imagine these reviews getting posted on BBS', Genie, etc. This would help us and others from getting ripped off. If things went really well, we might even get a newsletter going, but that will be discussed when the time comes. As for now, Joe says that he would like to coordinate things. If he wouldn't mind doing it without the money, then I would support his efforts. (Joe, I do not mean to imply that you are in this for the money.) I wouldn't mind donating disk space for a review depository. /ken Kenneth Suh PATH: suh@CUNIXC.COLUMBIA.EDU 312 McBain Hall, C/O Carman Hall SY.SUH@CU20B.BITNET Columbia University ..!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!suh New York, NY 10027
joe@lakesys.UUCP (Joe Pantuso) (03/27/88)
In article <33499@mongo.uucp> waynet@mongo.uucp (Wayne Thompson) writes: >Incorporate as a non-profit org, appoint a treasurer, preferrably a >Boy Scout ;-), and don't bother the test personell with funding details. >--- >..!sun!waynet We did and I am :-) (well, I'm associate advisor to an Explorer post anyway...) I don't plan to bother test personell with funding details, just to use the "testing fee" to provide shipping and system costs, also I don't feel it's out of line to give them a share if there is anything left over (like a couple extra megs?) ;-) Joe