Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!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: <1991Apr15.164926.6468@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 15 Apr 91 16:49:26 GMT
References: <19199@rpp386.cactus.org> <16831:Apr1306:25:0591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Apr14.204213.12062@athena.mit.edu> <12026:Apr1512:29:4191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 43

In article <12026:Apr1512:29:4191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
|> 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.

  Dan, do you deny the claim I have made that a patch I sent to Rich Salz,
which he said he would post to comp.sources.unix, was still unposted eight
months later?

  If you do not deny that, then do you deny the (implicit or explicit) claim I
have made that comp.sources.reviewed will never take close to eight months to
review a package or patch?

  If you do not deny that, then how can you say that the potential in
comp.sources.reviewed is only to provide "marginally" faster service than
comp.sources.unix.  It seems logically obvious to me that if comp.sources.unix
has taken as long as eight months in some cases to post simple submissions,
and if it is likely that comp.sources.reviewed will never take that long, then
the service provided by comp.sources.reviewed is significantly more than
"marginally" faster than the service provided by comp.sources.reviewed.

|> 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.

  I think that putting received, revised (if relevant) and accepted dates on
our postings, something which (as far as I know) no other source group
moderator (including Rich Salz -- how can you make any claims at all about the
speed of comp.sources.unix if Rich has never said publicly how long his lead
time is?) has ever done, is an excellent idea.  In case there are reviewers
who do not read this newsgroup, I will forward it to the reviewers mailing
list.

  Incidentally, Dan, I am willing to bet you any amount of money or any stake
you name that we will have something published "in a few 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