Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!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: <1991Apr14.204213.12062@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 91 20:42:13 GMT
References: <1991Apr11.022612.2522@rick.doc.ca> <9418:Apr1121:48:4291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <19199@rpp386.cactus.org> <16831:Apr1306:25:0591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 47

In article <16831:Apr1306:25:0591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
|> The reviewers are still arguing even the most basic issues: anonymity
|> and publication of reviews. Sure, they need to work privately to iron
|> out details and write up appropriate guidelines and organize the group's
|> first big review, but they should feel some responsibility towards the
|> people who gave them a place to show some results.

  If the people who voted for the newsgroup decide that it has not met their
expectations, then they will not use it and it will whither and die.

  Dan, I do not believe that you are qualified to decide for all of those
people whether or not the group is meeting their expectations.  I believe that
those people are the only ones who can decide whether their own expectations
are being met.

|> Yeah. I keep trying to figure out what c.s.r would do for any of my
|> code that alt.sources and Brandon/Kent and Rich wouldn't or didn't do.
|> I keep coming up with the same answer: longer lead times. Yay.

  I have had "lead times" of eight months in comp.sources.unix.  I do not
believe that c.s.r will ever have a program submitted and still not either
posted or rejected eight months later.  I have been told by Rich Salz that he
would post a patch from me "in the morning," and then waited for six months
without seeing that patch posted.

  Alt.sources has no moderation, no checking whatsoever.  Obviously, c.s.r
provides a service that it does not.

  Comp.sources.misc has not extensive checking of any sort, such as what Rich
does; indeed, its charter states that the purpose of the moderation is pretty
much only to make sure that non-source postings don't get posted there. 
C.s.r's review process, which will allow several people to get their hands on
a program and knock the bugs out of it before those bugs are released all over
the net, in my opinion provides something that comp.sources.misc does not.

  Finally, considering the recent performance in comp.sources.unix, it is my
opinion that c.s.r has the potential to provide something that it does not --
more reliable, quicker service, and the ability to *guarantee* that service by
making things more robust (with the large number of people working on the
group, it is unlikely that all of them will suddenly find themselves unable to
devote any time to it for six months).

-- 
Jonathan Kamens			              USnail:
MIT Project Athena				11 Ashford Terrace
jik@Athena.MIT.EDU				Allston, MA  02134
Office: 617-253-8085			      Home: 617-782-0710