Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!jik From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: v01INF1: Status - Status of comp.sources.reviewed Message-ID: <1991Apr12.002819.1809@athena.mit.edu> Date: 12 Apr 91 00:28:19 GMT References: <1991Apr11.022612.2522@rick.doc.ca> <9418:Apr1121:48:4291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system) Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 29 In article <9418:Apr1121:48:4291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: |> In article <1991Apr11.022612.2522@rick.doc.ca> csr@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes: |> > There has been a lot of activity "behind-the-scenes" among the reviewers |> > in getting the newsgroup setup. |> |> Of course. So all the people who voted for the group are now getting |> a group that may only loosely correspond to what was proposed at first. |> This isn't a flame, just an observation. It is an observation that has no basis in reality, and sounds like more of your illogical flaming about this newsgroup. The "behind-the-scenes activity" Andrew is referring to is the ironing out of the administrative details which will allow the submission and review process to operate effectively, AS IT WAS PROPOSED. The activity referred to was conducted within the framework of WHAT WAS PROPOSED. What reason do you have to believe that just because the reviewers talked about the newsgroup in E-mail, it will not provide the functionality that was proposed in the charter upon which the Usenet voted? Or are you saying that the various people who have agreed to be reviewers for the group are not allowed to correspond with each other in private E-mail, because the mere act of doing so makes them somehow unable to meet the charter of the group? -- Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8085 Home: 617-782-0710