🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19199@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
> In article <9418:Apr1121:48:4291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> 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.
> How, pray tell, do you reach this conclusion?

The reviewers are still arguing even the most basic issues: anonymity
and publication of reviews. Sure, they need to work privately to iron
out details and write up appropriate guidelines and organize the group's
first big review, but they should feel some responsibility towards the
people who gave them a place to show some results.

> I will probably never submit anything to the group.  It seems pointless
> and redundant and spiteful.  You want feedback and testing - use
> alt.sources as your beta-test facility, then pick one of the other
> groups for the finished product.

Yeah. I keep trying to figure out what c.s.r would do for any of my
code that alt.sources and Brandon/Kent and Rich wouldn't or didn't do.
I keep coming up with the same answer: longer lead times. Yay.

---Dan