Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:6596 comp.sources.wanted:15556 alt.sources.d:1555 alt.sources.wanted:999 news.admin:12495 news.groups:28360
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!dkuug!tfl.dk!karsten
From: karsten@tfl.dk
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,comp.sources.wanted,alt.sources.d,alt.sources.wanted,news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES -- comp.sources.reviewed
Message-ID: <1991Mar3.143640.151@tfl.dk>
Date: 3 Mar 91 13:36:40 GMT
References: <1991Feb28.053121.7739@rick.doc.ca> <1991Feb28.160555.8446@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM> <1991Mar1.082855.149@tfl.dk> <4989:Mar123:50:0391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Organization: TFL, A Danish Telecommunication Research Laboratory
Lines: 28

In article <4989:Mar123:50:0391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> In article <1991Mar1.082855.149@tfl.dk> karsten@tfl.dk writes:
>> Journals use paper mail for transporting papers.  After the paper has
>> been reviewed, it must be typeset, and proff read.  These things takes
>> time.
> 
> And you're implying that since comp.sources.reviewed will use e-mail
> instead, it will run smoothly? Be serious. Referees have always been and
> will always be the biggest bottleneck in journal publication.
> 
> ---Dan

No I am implying that when it runs smoothly, it can be
faster than journal publication.  Noboby can tell in advance
wheither or not the referees of comp.sources.reviewed would
be bottleneck, but I think that the moderator of c.s.r could
easily find a substitute a slack referee.  Andrew has
already 20-30 applicant for the posts as referees.  I
addition, the referees will work faster because they know
the system could be fast.  So is the human mind. No single
person will have as much work with running c.s.r as R$ has
with comp.sources.unix, even if c.s.r get a larger
throughput, and it will be much easier to replace those who
are slack.

Karsten Nyblad
TFL, A Danish Telecommunication Research Laboratory
E-mail: karsten@tfl.dk