🚀 go-pugleaf

cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:

>Before I run off, I want you to know that I don't think c.s.r is a bad
>idea, I just feel that it has placed too much power into the reviewer's 
>hands.   Since the software is the product of the author, only she
>should have the right to require changes to it.  A reviewer's job should
>be to look at the software and comment on what they think of it.  

>If the author still wants to post software with bad reviews, let her have
>that choice.  The group still serves the purpose of having reviewd the
>code and having given the result of the reviews to the community.

That's one (quite valid) way to look at it - like movie reviews.  Bad
reviews might not keep the studio from releasing - or they might, but
it's their choice.   Another way is to draw a comparison with the
reviewing of papers for scientific journals - or even of books for
publication.  I've never reviewed software on this basis, but I've
reviewed books and refereed articles, and I've felt no qualms about
suggesting that the work not be published in its' condition at the time
of reviewing.  I've even received letters of thanks for constructive
reviews which caused the publisher to have the author go back and make
changes prior to publication.

Which model should c.s.r follow?  (I won't take a position).
-- 
Mats Wichmann
Unisoft Corporation
mats@unisoft.com (or mats@netcom.com)

Silly Disclaimer:  speaking only for myself, except when I'm not.