🚀 go-pugleaf

brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:

>I was wrong. The group hasn't died. It's difficult to call it successful
>when it doesn't even produce one package a month, but it hasn't died.

If success is only to be measured in terms of published output, this
is ignoring one of the functions of c.s.r--to improve the quality of
the programs that are released through it.  I don't have the formal
numbers, but I think fewer than 50% of the packages reviewed by c.s.r
have passed muster.  (A number never even got to the reviewing stage because
they failed to pass a simple 'sanity' check.)

I know I've been involved in several that needed a lot of work.  Also, some 
of the packages submitted have been for such a specialized environment that 
finding reviewers has been a problem.  The reviewers and moderator are working 
on steps to improve the visibility of c.s.r, but we never claimed that the
group would have heavy volume.  (And if lack of volume is the sole criteria, we
should get rid of over half the Usenet newsgroups.)
---
Michael Nolan, nolan@tssi.com      "Freedom of the press is still alive in    
Tailored Software Services, Inc.    America, at the U. S. Mint"  (Gallagher)   
Lincoln, Nebraska (402) 423-1490