andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) (01/24/91)
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!