Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!hsdndev!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: v01INF1:  Status - Status of comp.sources.reviewed
Message-ID: <12026:Apr1512:29:4191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 15 Apr 91 12:29:41 GMT
References: <19199@rpp386.cactus.org> <16831:Apr1306:25:0591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Apr14.204213.12062@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: IR
Lines: 17

In article <1991Apr14.204213.12062@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>   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

Okay, I'm willing to believe that comp.sources.reviewed has the
*potential* to provide (marginally) faster service than c.s.unix. Since
this is its biggest (if not only) possible advantage, why don't you try
to imitate a bit of what journals really do: put received, revised, and
(if it matters) accepted dates on each article.

If you commit yourself now to showing what your real delays are, you'll
be able to look back in a few months and show me that I was wrong---if
you have anything published in a few months, that is.

---Dan