From: sidles@stein.u.washington.edu (John Sidles)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Date: 8 Jan 1993 01:57:29 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

>In article <MATT.93Jan6101442@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>>There hasn't been very much discussion about sci.physics.research
>>lately, but most of the comments seem to have been positive, so I will
>>probably post a CFV in a week or two.  
 
If there hasn't been much discussion, what does that say about the need
for sci.physics.research?  Except for the prospective moderators
themselves, who else is calling for new group?  Is there any evidence
that it is a substantial fraction of sci.physics readers?

>>First, though, we need a little
>>bit more detail on who the moderators will be, and what the guidelines
>>for posting will be.  
>>
>>In a day or two, I'll be posting a set of guidelines for articles
>>submitted to sci.physics.research, but first, here's the proposed
>>panel of moderators.
>>       John Baez    (jbaez@math.mit.edu)
>>       Dale Bass    (crb7q@virginia.edu)
>>       Bill Johnson (mwj@beta.lanl.gov)
>>       Lee Sawyer   (sawyer@utahep.uta.edu)
>>If one moderator has to quit, the others will choose a replacement.
>>

I hope these guys are not all scientologists!  There would be no
way to replace them.  Sounds like a prescription for a self-perpetuating
aristocracy to me.  Good thing the Constitution isn't set up this way.

>>The intent is that this panel be reasonably diverse in terms of
>>research interests; each of these people wrote up a "microCV" that
>>tells a bit about their background and what they do.
>> 
>>----------------------------------------
>>John C. Baez
>>BA mathematics Princeton U. 1982
>>PhD mathematics MIT 1986
>>Associate Prof. Dept. of Math. U. C. Riverside
>>Constructive quantum field theory, nonlinear wave equations, and
>>    the relationship of knot theory to quantum gravity
>>----------------------------------------
>>
>>----------------------------------------
>>Cameron 'dale' Bass
>>B.S. Aerospace Engineering, UVa
>>Graduate Research Assistant, University of Virginia;  
>>    Ph.D. expected early 1993 in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering;  
>>Research interests: fluid dynamics, electromagnetism, acoustics
>>----------------------------------------
>>
>>----------------------------------------
>>Bill Johnson
>>Staff member [project leader] at Los Alamos National Laboratory;
>>Ph.D., nuclear chemistry, Univ. of Rochester, 1979; 
>>Research interests: basic and applied nuclear physics, nuclear safeguards
>>----------------------------------------
>>
>>----------------------------------------
>>H. Lee Sawyer, Jr
>>B.S. Northeast Louisiana University (1985)
>>Ph.D. Florida State University (1991)
>>Experimental high energy physicist (we haven't perfected them yet...)    
>>Member of the E711, ALEPH, D0, and SDC experimental collaborations.      
>>----------------------------------------
>>--
>>Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
>>(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
>>austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
>>matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!

If these are the candidates, then let's hear their platforms!
Specifically, let each candidate review the last week's submissions
and tell whether they're acceptable or not (in a line or two), then
post the reviews.

I am curious what fraction of the current postings will be deemed
"rejectable".  If the rejected fraction is small, then why do we
need sci.physics.research?  And if the rejected fraction is large,
then why are we setting up such an exclusionary newsgroup?

I am also curious about the inter-rater correlation between
moderators.  If the inter-rater correlation is high, do we really
need or want such inflexible acceptance criteria?  And if the
correlation is rather small (as might reasonably be expected), do
we really want to mandate an evaluation which has a large noise
component?

So do the evaluations "blind", boys!  And don't be afraid to post
them... let the masses see how the proposed system will work.  Why
theorize about how well sci.physics.research will work, when it is
reasonably easy to gather and post the experimental data?

What bothers me most about sci.physics.research is that it's main
function seems to be (or could become) one of exclusion, in contrast
to other other specialty newsgroups (e.g., sci.math.numerics),
which have sharply deliminted subject areas.  Perhaps I'm wrong... 
but polemics won't convince me.  So let's see the data.

As usual when social engineering is proposed, the proponents include
those who will enjoy higher status under the new regime.  It is
remarkable that the above objections, which are only common sense,
have not been addressed by any of the presumptive moderators, other
than by hand-waving reassurances.

In summary, there is a substantial down-side to forming a new group.
Why meddle with the current system, which works OK?  If we want to
improve sci.physics, let's do it the old-fashioned way, namely, by
posting interesting physics.

Sincerely... John Sidles

Newsgroups: sci.physics