andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) (02/24/91)
In article <SJM9SU3@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1990Nov29.172427.11437@acc.stolaf.edu> rabe@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (brett m rabe; Jiffy Script Inc.) writes: >> But, from what I have been reading, there >> are at least a few people out there who are qualified who are >> willing to do the job. Why not let them? > >OK, post a CFD to news.announce.newgroups for your new moderated source >group. It *doesn't* have to be comp.sources.unix, you know. Call it, I >don't know, comp.sources.reviewed? >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com >+1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?" I posted a formal Call for Discussion for "comp.sources.reviewed" to news.announce.newgroups (and various relevant groups) back on February 4th! (The article is attached.) I received a grand total of one letter in reply, and have seen no discussion of the proposal. Ironically, my posting suggested that a Call for Votes would be issued today. I was about to give up on the idea because of the apparent apathy. Do people want to discuss it? Should there be a call for votes? >Article 805 of news.announce.newgroups: >Path: rick.doc.ca!dgbt!ncs.dnd.ca!uupsi!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!turbo.bio.net!lear >From: andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) >Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups >Subject: CALL FOR DISCUSSION -- comp.sources.reviewed >Message-ID: <Feb.3.21.43.50.1991.19484@turbo.bio.net> >Date: 4 Feb 91 05:43:32 GMT >Article-I.D.: turbo.Feb.3.21.43.50.1991.19484 >Sender: lear@turbo.bio.net >Followup-To: news.groups >Organization: Communications Research Centre, Ottawa >Lines: 54 >Approved: lear@turbo.bio.net >Nntp-Posting-Host: calvin.doc.ca > >This is a formal Call For Discussion for a proposed newsgroup >"comp.sources.reviewed". The Discussion Period will last to February >23, 1991, at which time a Call For Votes will be issued (pending the >results of the discussion). > >The newsgroup "comp.sources.reviewed" is being proposed now for three >reasons: > (1) to improve the timely distribution of high-quality software. > (2) to give software authors a more responsive "proving ground" for > their work. > (3) to distribute software with informative review information > attached such that readers can decide if it will be useful. > >I have recently completed a Call for Peer Reviewers and received replies >>From enough interested people (31) to suggest that a Peer Reviewed >newsgroup may be feasible and worth pursuing. > >The charter of the proposed group "comp.sources.reviewed" would be as >follows: > >"Comp.sources.reviewed" is a moderated newsgroup for the distribution of >program sources that have been subjected to a Peer Reviewed process. >Similar to the process used for academic journals, submissions are sent >to a moderator (unless a better option is discussed, I will act as the >moderator) who then sends the sources to Peer Review volunteers for >evaluation. The Reviewers are asked to provided a timely evaluation of >the software by compiling and running it on their machine. If time does >not permit them to complete a review, they are responsible for asking >the moderator to select another reviewer. > >The duties of the Moderator are to accept submissions and assign them to >reviewers, collect the reviews and make publication decisions, and post >the accepted sources. He is also be responsible for maintaining a list >of volunteers interested in acting as peer reviewers. (Volunteers can >send a note to "reviewed@calvin.doc.ca" to be placed on the list.) The >Moderator may seek the assistance of one or more Associate Moderators, >especially for the maintenance of an archive site (if one can be >arranged), and the rapid posting of patches to already-published >sources. (Many volunteers suggested that having Associate Moderators >assign the submission to reviewers and compiling the evaluations was >adding too much bureaucracy.) > >If the Moderator and Peer Reviewers judge a submission to be acceptable, >the sources will be posted along with the written comments provided >by the Reviewers. If a submission is not found to be acceptable, the >submitter will be provided with the Reviewers' comments, and they will >have the option of addressing those comments and submitting the sources >again. > > >-- >Andrew Patrick, Ph.D. Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA > andrew@calvin.doc.CA andrew@doccrc.BITNET > Bill Watterson for President! -- Andrew Patrick, Ph.D. Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA andrew@calvin.doc.CA "The interface IS the program."
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) (02/24/91)
In article <1991Feb24.034947.10921@rick.doc.ca> andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes: >In article <SJM9SU3@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>OK, post a CFD to news.announce.newgroups for your new moderated source >>group. It *doesn't* have to be comp.sources.unix, you know. Call it, I >>don't know, comp.sources.reviewed? > >I posted a formal Call for Discussion for "comp.sources.reviewed" to >news.announce.newgroups (and various relevant groups) back on February >4th! (The article is attached.) The simple truth is that most people are very satisfied with the fine job that Rich $alz does. I sincerly doubt that there is that much high quality software being sent to Rich. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "I've never written a device driver, but I have written a device driver manual" -- Robert Hartman, IDE Corp.
dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) (02/25/91)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes: >The simple truth is that most people are very satisfied with the fine >job that Rich $alz does. I think that this is a wrong assumption. Most people have now started to depend on mail servers, BITFTP, anon UUCP and (for those on the internet) FTP'ing. I think that most people are DISsatisfied with the state of comp.sources.unix, but have found a resonable alternative. >I sincerly doubt that there is that much high quality software being >sent to Rich. I agree; the software that IS posted to comp.sources.unix is VERY high quality. However, I know for a fact that software has been sent to him, and that it has fallen into a black hole. Lots of it. Hell, couldnt a moderator actually be on the lookout for good software and make a point of distributing it, rather than waiting for it to be submitted? Would it not be better to have more postings of perhaps a lower quality software, rather than 15 postings a year of higher quality? The enormous increase of mail servers, BITFTP replies, etc. are costing the USENET a fortune, and the obvious remedy (mass postings) are becoming a rarity. What aggravates a lot of people is the notion that a moderator is some sort of god, who is doing the entire net a favor. They ARE doing everyone a favor, and it IS appreciated, as long as they are consistent enough to spread software quickly. Otherwise, you get 1,000 requests for the same software every week via email. However, what about the organizations who are PAYING for the BITFTP replies, mail servers transmissions, etc. and get no recognition? If you think that this amount is negligible, you obviously havent priced the net lately. -- dean@coplex.UUCP Dean A. Brooks Copper Electronics, Inc. Louisville, Ky UUCP: !uunet!coplex!dean
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (02/25/91)
dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes: >Would it not be better to have more postings of perhaps a lower >quality software, rather than 15 postings a year of higher quality? This is precisely what a number of people have been arguing against. It is the reason that comp.sources.misc exists. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
paj@mrcu (Paul Johnson) (02/28/91)
I didn't bother responding because I thought it was such an obviously Good Thing that it would be passed by aclamation (sp?). After all, what are the disadvantages? If it is created and turns out to be a success then we can revise the charter of the other comp.sources groups to make them peer-reviewed. If it dies we can simply drop it. What have we got to lose? PS I took alt.sources.d out of the crosspost line as we do not get it. Paul -- Paul Johnson UUCP: <world>!mcvax!ukc!gec-mrc!paj --------------------------------!-------------------------|------------------- GEC-Marconi Research is not | Telex: 995016 GECRES G | Tel: +44 245 73331 responsible for my opinions. | Inet: paj@gec-mrc.co.uk | Fax: +44 245 75244
dick@smith.UUCP (Dick Smith) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Feb24.034947.10921@rick.doc.ca> andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes: >I posted a formal Call for Discussion for "comp.sources.reviewed" to >news.announce.newgroups (and various relevant groups) back on February >4th! > >I received a grand total of one letter in reply, and have seen no >discussion of the proposal. Ironically, my posting suggested that a >Call for Votes would be issued today. I was about to give up on the >idea because of the apparent apathy. > >Do people want to discuss it? Should there be a call for votes? Here's what I assumed from the current traffic: (1) People don't want to discuss it... it was discussed at great length under various headings prior to the CFD. I recall you saying that you had sufficient volunteers to run the "..reviewed" group. That alone indicates some interest. (2) There SHOULD be a call for votes. I, for one, will vote yes. No matter what one thinks about the performance of other groups, it would be good to have more quality source code available. I think most of the net will agree. -- Dick Smith dick@smith.uucp R. H. E. Smith Corp. dick%smith@ast.dsd.northrop.com soon--> dick@smith.chi.il.us