Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!yale!ox.com!lokkur!scs From: scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: "peer review" style of moderation Message-ID: <1990Dec1.230418.27831@lokkur.dexter.mi.us> Date: 1 Dec 90 23:04:18 GMT References: <1990Nov24.163906.19793@chinet.chi.il.us> <971@iiasa.UUCP> <1990Nov28.170948.11146@sceard.Sceard.COM> <1990Nov30.022320.6793@ico.isc.com> <17921@hydra.gatech.EDU> Organization: Inland Sea Lines: 19 In abeals@autodesk.com (Plu festu, uloj) writes: >A better way would be to have multiple moderators - each moderator gets >a copy of each submission. gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) writes: >Ummm, what if the code needs changes? Then you have multiple versions >floating around. Doubleplusungood. No, you do it just like refereeing a papers -- requests for changes (or maybe patches, too) are collected by the moderator and returned to the original author. The author makes and co-ordinates the revisions, possibly in direct contact with the referee(s). If the author doesn't want to do so, fine -- let him submit elsewhere. -- "I was talking about what it takes to be a real critic, not a critic wannabe." -- Mike Godwin, rec.arts.comics critic Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com