Re: Fire Hydrant for the Flames

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, David Peterson wrote:

> First:
>
> <<If we
> >had a regular system (say one post on Monday, one post Thursday) that would
> >mean two peer reviews a week. Much more managable, in my opinion. It would
> >also give three days for comments and exchanges. If more comments are
> >necesary, the threads could be easily taken off-list. But I believe that it
> >is important to have the threads on-list for a couple of days, so that others
> >can comment on the comments. We want open peer review.>>
>
> And then, in a message dated 03/12/02 6:11:16 PM, grey@FAS.HARVARD.EDU writes:
>
> << People would sign up for a chunk of time (a week), and for any given
> chunk of time, there would be 3 (or some other suitable number) people who
> would be responsible for providing careful critiques of any language
> presented during that week. This way, people who aren't quite ready
> wouldn't have to wait 6 months to get comments. If we did things this way,
> I'd say that the first month or so be "staffed" by more people, so that we
> could handle the expected rush of people clamoring for comments. >>
>
>     Yeah, I really like this idea.  I say "this", even though it's not
> necessarily one, defined idea, because I like the sense of it.  I'd be
> willing to participate right away, if someone can hammer down a format.
I like this idea too, but I can't perform on a schedule at all.  I'm
afraid when I *do* get a chance to post a grammar, it'll be out of
schedule and therefore sort of -- well, ignored.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prurio modo viri qui in arbore pilosa est.
                        ~~Elvis

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~