andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) (12/12/90)
With all the recent discussions about the slow rate of postings to
comp.sources.unix and the unresponsiveness of Rich Salz, I think it is
time to think seriously about an alternative sources group. Thus, I
would like to conduct a survey to determine if a PEER REVIEWED sources
group is of interest to people, and feasible to operate.
First, let me outline how I think a peer reviewed sources group might
work. Then, I will ask people who are interested in participating in
such a group to drop a note to a special address, and I'll compile the
results and summarize to the net. We will then have to decide if we
want to go through the procedure of creating the group.
What I want to propose is a sources newsgroup that is based on a peer
review system similar to that used for academic journals. For the sake
of labelling, I will call this new newsgroup COMP.SOURCES.REVIEWED
(perhaps comp.sources.unix.reviewed would be more appropriate -- it
depends on what people are interested in). This newsgroup would be
moderated by a committee that has 3 levels: Moderator, Associate
Moderators, and Peer Reviewers. Here is a quick outline of what the
roles of these players would be (again, based on the model provided by
academic journals).
Moderator
The Moderator would be the adminstrator/delegator position in the
organization. He (or she) would receive submission and assign them to
the Associate Moderators. He would work with the Associate Editors in
making decisions about what sources should be posted and would perform
the actual postings once the software was reviewed and accepted. In
general, this person would act as the "front-end" to the system --
handling questions, complaints, requests to repost, etc. In addition,
the Moderator would have to maintain a database of Peer Reviewers who
could be called upon by the Associate Moderators to evaluate software.
(An "Yes" I would be willing to take this position if that is our best
option. Gulp!)
Associate Moderators
The Associate Moderators would receive submission from the Moderator and
assign them to Peer Reviewers. They would be responsible for ensuring
that the reviews are returned in a timely fashion, and for making
recommendations to the Moderator about the suitability/quality of the
software. The Associate Moderators would also be responsible for
preparing replies to the submitters that summarize the reviews, whether
the sources were accepted or not.
Peer Reviewers
The Reviewers would receive sources from the Associates and evaluate
them for their suitability, quality, etc. They would be responsible for
preparing timely evaluations of the software, and perhaps providing
expert advice to assist in the decisions made by the Moderators.
So, the question I have for you is: Would you be interested in any one
of these positions? I would like to collect a head count of the number
of people who are interested in this kind of a news group, and at what
level. If the numbers are large enough (say 5 Associates, 50
Reviewers), then I think we might want to talk about creating the group.
If you are interested in participating, please drop a note to the
following address explaining what positions are of interest (Moderator,
Associate Moderator, or Peer Reviewer). You can also include a brief
description of the skills you might bring to the job (e.g., what kinds
of sources you could evaluate).
Please send you mail to:
reviewed@calvin.doc.ca (Internet, Bitnet, UUCP)
If you have problems, you can try:
reviewed%calvin@dgbt.doc.ca
or
reviewed%calvin@dgbt.crc.dnd.ca
I will summarize the results to the net in about 1 week.
--
Andrew Patrick, Ph.D. Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA
andrew@calvin.doc.CA andrew@doccrc.BITNET
HDTV: higher resolution, improved colour, wider screen,
"sit-com" reruns. What's wrong with this picture?andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) (12/20/90)
In article <1990Dec12.051059.3313@rick.doc.ca> I wrote: >With all the recent discussions about the slow rate of postings to >comp.sources.unix and the unresponsiveness of Rich Salz, I think it is >time to think seriously about an alternative sources group. Thus, I >would like to conduct a survey to determine if a PEER REVIEWED sources >group is of interest to people, and feasible to operate. ... >I would like to collect a head count of the number >of people who are interested in this kind of a news group, and at what >level. If the numbers are large enough (say 5 Associates, 50 >Reviewers), then I think we might want to talk about creating the group. ... After 1 week, I have received 24 replies by e-mail. Here is the count of people interested in the positions I described (note that the total count is > 24 since some people expressed interest in more than one position): Moderator: 2 Associate Moderator: 6 Peer Reviewer: 18 I also received some interesting comments on the proposal. Only one person thought the whole thing was impractical, but a number suggested that I may be proposing too much bureaucracy. In particular, they questioned whether the level of Associate Moderators was really needed. Many people suggested that it was important that reviews involve testing on a number of systems, and people often listed the systems that they had available. One person suggested that two special Associate Moderators be created to handle the archiving and patches/fixes. This sounds like a great suggestion. In general, I did not receive the number of replies that I had hoped for. They are still trickling in, however, so I will leave the mailbox open over the holidays and post a final summary in January. So as a reminder, if you are interested in the idea of a PEER REVIEWED sources group (comp.sources.reviewed?) based on an academic journal model, send a note to reviewed@calvin.doc.ca stating your interest. I am looking for people who would be interested in being Peer Reviewers, Associate Moderators, or Moderator. -- Andrew Patrick, Ph.D. Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA andrew@calvin.doc.CA andrew@doccrc.BITNET HDTV: higher resolution, improved colour, wider screen, "sit-com" reruns. What's wrong with this picture?