Xref: utzoo news.admin:12406 comp.sources.d:6525 alt.sources.d:1497 news.groups:28126 Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.sources.d,alt.sources.d,news.groups Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!dgbt!rick.doc.ca!calvin.doc.ca!andrew From: andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) Subject: Re: Comp.sources.unix and replacing Rich Salz Message-ID: <1991Feb24.034947.10921@rick.doc.ca> Summary: there has been a CFD issued! Sender: news@rick.doc.ca Nntp-Posting-Host: calvin.doc.ca Organization: Communications Research Centre, Ottawa References: <1990Nov28.214659.26551@looking.on.ca> <1990Nov29.172427.11437@acc.stolaf.edu> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 03:49:47 GMT In article 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: >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."