Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!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: <12409:Apr1513:14:4591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 15 Apr 91 13:14:45 GMT
References: <nolan.671566523@helios> <6787:Apr1420:38:3991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Apr14.232818.15851@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: IR
Lines: 68

In article <1991Apr14.232818.15851@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
> At that
> point, the journal will forward the reviewer's comments back to the author,
> with all names removed (the anonymity that Dan is defending so vociferously),
  [ ... ]
>   The way we currently think we'll be doing things in c.s.r, the moderator
> will give no indication to the submitter of who the reviewers are.  They will
> remain anonymous, unless they choose to contact the submitter directly.

Fine. I'll accept that the guidelines really did mean that reviews will
remain anonymous, though they say no such thing and imply exactly the
opposite.

> Finally, any comments
> that the reviewers have that they think might help people will be included
> when the submission is finally posted to c.s.r.

Fine. I'll accept that ``moderator posts sources and evaluations''
really means ``moderator posts sources, along with any selected comments
that the reviewers think might help people,'' rather than what it says.

>   I see nothing wrong with reviewers contacting the submitter of a package. 

It's not *wrong*, just extremely unusual. The guidelines say ``Reviewers
may contact you for information and clarification''; the default in
journal publication is that referees ask the editor to forward comments
and questions.

I'm glad you think you know what you're doing. Apparently that has very
little to do with the guidelines. I suggest you hire a writer.

> It seems no different to me from the forwarding of reviewers' comments back to
> the author in the case of a real journal, and I *know* that this happens,

I'm glad you know something about how journals work.

>   What all this comes down to is that, in the majority of cases, there is *no
> need* for anonymity in the c.s.r reviewing process.

You have the right to your beliefs. Just don't pretend that this has
anything to do with journal publication.

> |> Yes. I invite you---any of you---to explain what comp.sources.reviewed
> |> would have done for my latest package, volume24/yabbawhap in c.s.unix.
> |> Rich made no changes to it, so it's easy competition, right? Surely you
> |> can point out *some* advantage in your precious ``reviewing'' process.
> |> All I see is that c.s.reviewed would take weeks where Rich took days.
  [ ... ]
> Therefore, to answer your question -- the c.s.r review process may have found
> problems that you did not anticipate.

The gamma testing process found lots of problems that I did not
anticipate, but that happened *before* I published the sources.

I again invite you to explain what you would have done with the package,
exactly as it went out on comp.sources.unix. You're saying that you
``may have found problems''; I say you should come down out of the
clouds and try to find problems. The package is right there! Make an
example of it! Have a blast!

  [ in reference to some c.s.unix package ]
> C.s.r would not, in my opinion, have allowed that mistake to
> happen.

Your guidelines give ``nlist'' as a prototypical package name, and
you're saying the group is going to catch mistakes?

---Dan