In article <9002151352.AA06815 at net.bio.net>, MSALMINEN%FINNPHI at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (MIKA SALMINEN) writes:
>> From: FI%"harper at CC.HELSINKI.FI" 14-FEB-1990 22:48:32.14
> To: "Mika O. Salminen" <MSALMINEN at FINNPHI>
> Subj: Re: Software publishing
>> Cited: Rob Harper, 14-feb-1990
>>> I do not propose that UUE code should be put up for grabs on
> BIO-SOFT, (it is never a very good policy to mix "talk" with
I agree with this completely....
> Summary: a) Skilled programme evaluator needed.
> b) Quality control of programmes.
> c) Review of programmes posted to BIO-SOFT
> either by original author or reviewer.
> d) Software available from a software server.
> that the service could be extended a bit. This would mean that they should
> start a cooperation program with CABIOS, NAR etc. The reviews could then be
> sent to BIO-SOFT for redistribution.
It might be a good idea to coordinate the publication of a note describing
programs submitted to the group with the actual submission. Sort of like the
For the record part of NAR.
> This proposition doesn't of course solve the problem of the skilled programme
> evaluator, but perhaps someone at the EMBL-biocomputing programme would be
> Here is where i have a real problem. Why dont we just set up a little review
board from the whole of the expert users that we have on the net? Folks could
volunteer to evaluate software for their favorite platform. That way we could
be assured of getting a well rounded commentary on all the new stuff that comes
out. This would keep one (or a small number of) persons view from affecting
the software library too much. That is, the views of a larger number of folks,
reviewing software ona sort of rotating basis, would keep the character of the
archive somewhat diverse.
I personally would volunteer for this sort of duty... as many others would (I
am reasonably sure they would.... wouldn't they???).
Anyway, those are my $0.02.