🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Dec12.051059.3313@rick.doc.ca> I wrote:

>With all the recent discussions about the slow rate of postings to
>comp.sources.unix and the unresponsiveness of Rich Salz, I think it is
>time to think seriously about an alternative sources group.  Thus, I
>would like to conduct a survey to determine if a PEER REVIEWED sources
>group is of interest to people, and feasible to operate.
...
>I would like to collect a head count of the number
>of people who are interested in this kind of a news group, and at what
>level.  If the numbers are large enough (say 5 Associates, 50
>Reviewers), then I think we might want to talk about creating the group.
...

After 1 week, I have received 24 replies by e-mail.  Here is the
count of people interested in the positions I described (note that the
total count is > 24 since some people expressed interest in more than
one position):

Moderator: 2
Associate Moderator: 6
Peer Reviewer: 18

I also received some interesting comments on the proposal.  Only one
person thought the whole thing was impractical, but a number suggested
that I may be proposing too much bureaucracy.  In particular, they
questioned whether the level of Associate Moderators was really
needed.

Many people suggested that it was important that reviews involve
testing on a number of systems, and people often listed the systems
that they had available.

One person suggested that two special Associate Moderators be created
to handle the archiving and patches/fixes.  This sounds like a great
suggestion.

In general, I did not receive the number of replies that I had hoped
for.  They are still trickling in, however, so I will leave the mailbox
open over the holidays and post a final summary in January.

So as a reminder, if you are interested in the idea of a PEER REVIEWED
sources group (comp.sources.reviewed?) based on an academic journal
model, send a note to

	reviewed@calvin.doc.ca
	
stating your interest.  I am looking for people who would be interested
in being Peer Reviewers, Associate Moderators, or Moderator.


-- 
Andrew Patrick, Ph.D.       Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA
               andrew@calvin.doc.CA    andrew@doccrc.BITNET
        HDTV:  higher resolution, improved colour, wider screen,
            "sit-com" reruns.  What's wrong with this picture?