home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
- Path: sparky!uunet!virtech!cpcahil
- From: cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill)
- Subject: Re: comp.sources.reviewed and a blast from the past
- Message-ID: <1992Sep5.123907.22627@virtech.uucp>
- Organization: Virtual Technologies Inc.
- References: <1992Aug14.150535.15169@rick.dgbt.doc.ca> <1992Aug17.023423.14527@virtech.uucp> <Bt5M67.273.2@cs.cmu.edu> <1992Aug18.153042.12235@PacBell.COM> <1992Aug19.112600.1288@virtech.uucp> <aannz1.mats@netcom.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 12:39:07 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- mats@netcom.com (Mats Wichmann) writes:
-
- >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suggesting that the work not be published in its' condition at the time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.
-
- The issue I see here is that there is alot of prestige and benefits
- from having a paper published (who doesn't list such a thing on their
- resume).
-
- Somehow I don't see someone writing on their resume "I posted this
- software to c.s.r" (or at least if they do, the important part will
- be the software, not the fact that it got through c.s.r).
- --
- *** SENTINEL(tm) The ultimate Debugging Environment - email for more info ***
-
- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 cpcahil@virtech.vti.com
- Virtual Technologies, Inc. 46030 Manekin Plaza Dulles, VA 21066
-