🚀 go-pugleaf

pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes:

>it seems we should have a framework
>to operate in before we start planning the operation.  at the very
>least rich should tell us if he thinks this is a good idea. 

>if there is sufficient support for a new way to deliver unix sources
>then a call for discussion and vote for a new group should be simple
>if comp.unix.sources is felt to be deficient in some way and nothing
>is going to change.

>we could call it comp.sources.unix.refereed.

Paul has summed it all up in a few sentences.  For a discussion that
started as a flamefest it'd (what's the opposite of degenerated?) become
a remarkably constructive ideafest.

Much as I respect Rich, I don't see where his input is required.  Any
'comp.sources.refereed' will be a new way of doing source examination,
and should be looked on as such.  Yes, there will be some competition
or overlap, but that's fine.  The net evolves by practical experiment,
as it should.

All we need is a few acceptable volunteers for editor and some policy
for the charter.  Exact details of how to edit/moderate/referee should
be up to the editor and the reviewers.
-- 
 "I was talking about what it takes to be a real critic, not a critic
  wannabe."   -- Mike Godwin, rec.arts.comics critic