🚀 go-pugleaf

scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (That's Me!) writes:
> 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.

brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) responds:
>I don't know about you, but I want somebody with experience moderating
>the most useful group on the Internet. I also wouldn't mind beta-testing
>packages that come through, so as to give Rich and the authors a bit
>more assurance that the code is portable. If Rich likes the idea of
>having testers, your proposal for comp.sources.refereed will fall flat.
>Why are you so eager to institute major changes in a system that works?

Paul Grahams original comment (which I quoted) was:

   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. 

I'd be most pleased to have Rich's comments.  Please note I said his
input is not *required*.  For whatever reason he is not participating
in this discussion.  That lack of participation should not prevent us
from going ahead with Pauls excellent idea.

Note too, that a refereed newsgroup is going to be quite a different
beast to manage.  Richs experinces (and Brandons, and anybody else
who's been moderating a source groups) will be most useful to the
referees.  Overseeing the referees is something few if any of us
have experince with.
-- 
 "I was talking about what it takes to be a real critic, not a critic
  wannabe."   -- Mike Godwin, rec.arts.comics critic