Xref: utzoo news.groups:28348 comp.sources.d:6593 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sparky!kent From: kent@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM (Kent Landfield) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sources.d Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES -- comp.sources.reviewed Keywords: news groups source review Message-ID: <1991Mar3.035928.28569@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM> Date: 3 Mar 91 03:59:28 GMT References: <1991Feb28.053121.7739@rick.doc.ca> <1991Feb28.160555.8446@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM> <1991Mar1.150759.11832@rick.doc.ca> Organization: Sterling Software IMD, Bellevue, Nebraska Lines: 70 In article <1991Mar1.150759.11832@rick.doc.ca> andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes: > >NOTE: I am restricting this discussion to news.groups: Many people feel that this should be discussed in comp.sources.d since that is the area which we are discussing. For my postings, I added it back... I wrote in my initial posting and Andrew quoted... # My intention here is to try to get some # information and to stimulate a discussion so that any vote is based on # merit and not emotion... Looks like I stimulated some discussion... :-) Andrew writes: >I was about to let the whole thing lapse due to lack of discussion, but >postings and e-mail convinced me to post a CFV and see what happens. > >At this point, 69 people disagree with you and feel it is time for >voting -- they have already cast theirs. > >If you don't like the proposal, vote NO. When I initially responded to the CFV, I was acting in a manner that was informational in scope. By Andrew's own admission there was a lack of any real discussion on the topic. The questions I posed were to gather the background I needed to make an intelligent decision. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't vote for local, state or national issues without knowing what they are. Why should the net issues be any different... :-) Andrew has answered most of my inital questions and with the help of Warren Tucker, a better picture of just what the group is going to supply has now been presented. To snapshot what Warren wrote: | c.s.r would | | o provide a more reliable and organized way to find motivated tester-critics | o increase the number of cases and environments for testing | o improve the end product and reduce patch frequency | o more than compensate for delays in net.delivery. | o should be a comp.sources."new-and-augmenting" not a comp.sources. | "all-is-made-new" or comp.sources."death-to-$alz". I can see a group like this would fill a currently existing void for authors. I have run into the problem myself with rkive. I "recruited" a beta test team so that I would have others beating on the code in a different manner than I normally did. It was not easy to get it set up. This type of group could have saved me that initial setup... :-) An additional area that need clarification is how patches going to be dealt with. Will they go back through c.s.r for re-evaluation prior to being posted? Or will patches be accumulated prior to resubmission through c.s.r ? I would like to suggest that a more indepth description of the group's general procedures and proposed policy be posted. Yes, I know that this is beyond what is needed to vote but some of us think the vote is just a formality... :-) You could consider it a headstart on the introduction and policy posting ... :-) From a submitters perspective, how are authors to submit and work with the group, how will the group deal with the inevitable patches, and what are areas that would cause rejections are a good starting place. These are real areas that will have to be addressed. Now is as good a time as any... :-) :-) -Kent+ -- Kent Landfield INTERNET: kent@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM Sterling Software, IMD UUCP: uunet!sparky!kent Phone: (402) 291-8300 FAX: (402) 291-4362 Please send comp.sources.misc-related mail to kent@uunet.uu.net.