[melbourne-pug] Melbourne Community

[Maurice Ling]

>Thanks for the 2 strong votes of confidence.
>  
>
No worries

>I also vote for some form of peer-review. I'd love to not to that peer 
>review myself, so getting the list to do it makes sense. I think it's 
>(a) nice to have something of yours published and thought thoroughly 
>about, and (b) interesting to see people's opinions of things. A 
>mailing-list review is the easiest. We need a candidate piece of code + 
>short article from the originator, in the form of "An abstract", "the 
>code", "a discussion", "something chatty". I'm happy to take that as a 
>loosely formatted email to myself, edit it in preparation for peer 
>review, then take random mailing list emails and turn them into some 
>kind of coherent narrative.
>  
>
I think a short article of something of your suggestion (abstract, code, 
discussion, something chatty) is good. In fact, ACM Transactions on 
Mathematical Softwares (http://www.ccd.bnl.gov/sif/html/acmalgs.html) 
had been doing this for years. But I do not recommend yourself to format 
the article from emails, this is pure laziness on the submitters' part.

Cheers
Maurice