🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <scs.671464069@hela.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >Of course. So all the people who voted for the group are now getting
> >a group that may only loosely correspond to what was proposed at first.
> >This isn't a flame, just an observation.
> And one with no basis in fact.  We're ironing out the rules on notifying
> submitters, when reviewers have to get data back to the moderators, etc,
> etc.  Purely administrative.  Note the "we".  I speak from facts, not
> guesses.

Oh, really? I suppose that the difference between unpublished, anonymous
reviews and published, credited reviews is ``purely administrative''?

Or are you going to claim that you're not considering such a change?

Sorry, but that isn't ``ironing out the rules'' like the twiddling in
your examples. The fact is that the basic workings of the group were not
settled before the vote, and you're only now making up rules that will
entirely determine the nature of comp.sources.reviewed. Again, I don't
mind this; I didn't vote for the group, so I'm not going to feel cheated
if it ends up wildly different from the original proposals.

What I do mind is that you're pretending to have modelled the process on
journal publication. I wonder how many of the comp.sources.reviewed
reviewers have ever been referees, let alone editors, of professional or
academic journals---especially since the current c.s.r rules have almost
nothing in common with those of any established publication.

---Dan