Comp.sources.unix and replacing Rich Salz

[Andrew Patrick]

In article <SJM9SU3 at xds13.ferranti.com> peter at ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <1990Nov29.172427.11437 at acc.stolaf.edu> rabe at thor.acc.stolaf.edu (brett m rabe; Jiffy Script Inc.) writes:
>> But, from what I have been reading, there
>> are at least a few people out there who are qualified who are
>> willing to do the job.  Why not let them?
>
>OK, post a CFD to news.announce.newgroups for your new moderated source
>group. It *doesn't* have to be comp.sources.unix, you know. Call it, I
>don't know, comp.sources.reviewed?
>-- 
>Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter at ferranti.com
>+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"

I posted a formal Call for Discussion for "comp.sources.reviewed" to
news.announce.newgroups (and various relevant groups) back on February
4th!  (The article is attached.)

I received a grand total of one letter in reply, and have seen no
discussion of the proposal.  Ironically, my posting suggested that a
Call for Votes would be issued today.  I was about to give up on the
idea because of the apparent apathy.

Do people want to discuss it?  Should there be a call for votes?

>Article 805 of news.announce.newgroups:
>Path: rick.doc.ca!dgbt!ncs.dnd.ca!uupsi!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!turbo.bio.net!lear
>From: andrew at calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick)
>Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups
>Subject: CALL FOR DISCUSSION -- comp.sources.reviewed
>Message-ID: <Feb.3.21.43.50.1991.19484 at turbo.bio.net>
>Date: 4 Feb 91 05:43:32 GMT
>Article-I.D.: turbo.Feb.3.21.43.50.1991.19484
>Sender: lear at turbo.bio.net
>Followup-To: news.groups
>Organization: Communications Research Centre, Ottawa
>Lines: 54
>Approved: lear at turbo.bio.net
>Nntp-Posting-Host: calvin.doc.ca
>
>This is a formal Call For Discussion for a proposed newsgroup
>"comp.sources.reviewed".  The Discussion Period will last to February
>23, 1991, at which time a Call For Votes will be issued (pending the
>results of the discussion).
>
>The newsgroup "comp.sources.reviewed" is being proposed now for three
>reasons:
>    (1) to improve the timely distribution of high-quality software.
>    (2) to give software authors a more responsive "proving ground" for
>    	their work.
>    (3) to distribute software with informative review information
>    	attached such that readers can decide if it will be useful.
>
>I have recently completed a Call for Peer Reviewers and received replies
>>From enough interested people (31) to suggest that a Peer Reviewed
>newsgroup may be feasible and worth pursuing.
>
>The charter of the proposed group "comp.sources.reviewed" would be as 
>follows:
>
>"Comp.sources.reviewed" is a moderated newsgroup for the distribution of
>program sources that have been subjected to a Peer Reviewed process.
>Similar to the process used for academic journals, submissions are sent
>to a moderator (unless a better option is discussed, I will act as the
>moderator) who then sends the sources to Peer Review volunteers for
>evaluation.  The Reviewers are asked to provided a timely evaluation of
>the software by compiling and running it on their machine.  If time does
>not permit them to complete a review, they are responsible for asking
>the moderator to select another reviewer.
>
>The duties of the Moderator are to accept submissions and assign them to
>reviewers, collect the reviews and make publication decisions, and post
>the accepted sources.  He is also be responsible for maintaining a list
>of volunteers interested in acting as peer reviewers.  (Volunteers can
>send a note to "reviewed at calvin.doc.ca" to be placed on the list.) The
>Moderator may seek the assistance of one or more Associate Moderators,
>especially for the maintenance of an archive site (if one can be
>arranged), and the rapid posting of patches to already-published
>sources.  (Many volunteers suggested that having Associate Moderators
>assign the submission to reviewers and compiling the evaluations was
>adding too much bureaucracy.)
>
>If the Moderator and Peer Reviewers judge a submission to be acceptable,
>the sources will be posted along with the written comments provided
>by the Reviewers.  If a submission is not found to be acceptable, the
>submitter will be provided with the Reviewers' comments, and they will
>have the option of addressing those comments and submitting the sources
>again.
>
>
>-- 
>Andrew Patrick, Ph.D.       Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA
>               andrew at calvin.doc.CA    andrew at doccrc.BITNET
>                      Bill Watterson for President!


-- 
Andrew Patrick, Ph.D.       Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA
andrew at calvin.doc.CA
                    "The interface IS the program."