Dear Russell:

I agree with the objective but it seems to me we first need to provide such 
forums with things like a rough map of the current acronym landscape and a 
companion map of the suspected relative merit of current concepts both of 
which must come from within the smaller group.  Both maps are still dynamic 
as would be the FAQ that reflected them - thus as you say a journal of 
sorts. I would not, in that context, consider the FAQ as unrefereed since 
both kinds of forum are - for pragmatic reasons - rather self referential 
and the FAQ would not have unlimited access.

In essence a well structured and reviewed FAQ for this list might help the 
entry of papers into the "mainstream".

Hal


At 7/5/01, you wrote:
>No - it has a different function. The FAQ is more like a review
>article of the discussion on the email list, which in turn is like an
>unrefereed journal. We do need to get articles into the refereed
>scientific mainstream where we can. These form more solid islands
>within the "swampy peninsula" of speculation you so aptly call
>it. These more solid bulding blocks act as "seeds" and "anchors", from
>which our comprehension will grow.
>
>This list has already refereed the "Why Occam's Razor paper", and it
>is a better paper for all the constructive criticism it received.
>
>                                                 Cheers



Reply via email to