🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <scs.671464196@hela.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
> Criticism will be much more effective if based on how we actually *do*
> things rather than worst possible interpretations of guidelines.  Give
> us time to actually review things -- you'll probably like what you
> see.

Oh? I still don't even know what you mean by ``review.''

Will the reviews be published? Journals don't publish referee reports.
You claim to have modelled the process on what journals do. Your
original rules say you will publish reviews. Apparently you're waffling
internally. Yes or no? Was there any hint of this in the CFV?

Will the reviews include lots of opinions on usability, features, etc.?
I simply assumed not, and I sure don't remember anything like that from
the original proposals. Journal reports, of course, are generally short,
and always focus on whether the article is publishable. But now I'm told
in e-mail that the c.s.r reviews may end up like magazine reviews. Yes
or no? Was there any hint of this in the CFV?

I could continue, but I hope you get the point. comp.sources.reviewed
was not modelled upon journal publication except in the most superficial
sense, and after you've finished making up rules for it, it may be just
a shadow of what people expected when they voted for a group by that
name. If you dropped the pretenses of imitating journals or of obeying
the original charter, I wouldn't be so annoyed---but you also wouldn't
have a newsgroup.

---Dan