🚀 go-pugleaf

markd@werple.pub.uu.oz.au (Mark Delany) writes:
> > Of course, the whole point of c.s.r is to post only software that meets a
> > standard of quality defined by the reviewers.  ...
>
> ... keep c.s.r's
> quality requirements as is. Nothing can help quality more than having
> a premier review group that people aspire to post to.

Hmm.  Maybe *here* is the problem.  In order to function as intended,
c.s.r needs to be perceived as a prestigious place to post.  Software
authors need to be willing to go to some extra effort in order to have
their stuff appear in c.s.r rather than c.s.m or c.s.u.

Right now I don't believe that c.s.r has the necessary cachet.  Judging
from the tone of this discussion so far, c.s.r has if anything a rather
*negative* reputation among authors.  People seem to view c.s.r as just
a beta-testing mechanism, and an overly rigid one at that.  If the proposed
comp.sources.testers passes and is successful, c.s.r may die rapidly.

Perhaps I have misjudged the prevailing opinion, but if this is an accurate
summary, then c.s.r needs a serious P.R. effort (at least; perhaps
substantive changes too).  How can we go about making c.s.r into
"the premier place to post sources"?

				regards, tom lane