request for advice

[Alexandre Wajnberg]

Dear Neil, and friends,


Other ideas for the future of Neil's creation and for "our" collective base.
They are about <how to deal with apparently *deaf* people>:


1. To publish the "OEIS Charter", which specifies clearly and completely
-the *objective rules* for submissions (like Emeric's points, or Russ's
ideas)
-the Oetiquette! The OETIQUETTE!!!


2. To be inspired by the way moderators of mailing lists (or newsgroups) act
(first, a personal communication with the not fair submissioner; then,
temporary interdiction to submit... Until to publish on a board the yellow
cards, red cards delivered... Then the definitive exclusion (in any group it
may happen!)

Because from where come the problems?!!
-Either (the low bound) from sympathetic amateurs (like me) who make errors
but are willing to correct them: they are slowering the work of the board of
editors but sometime have interesting ideas. They follow the policy!
-Either (the high bound) from people who *doesn't listen* to what is asked
(amateurs or professional mathematicians) and here is really the problem!
Or from those who ‹ the worst case ‹ "attack" the base! (Am I paranoiac?
Well, it could happen the base is attaqued! You know the problem: a
paranoiac man is pursued by a thief who wants to kill him. The fact that the
man is paranoiac doesn't mean he is not pursued...).
So *deaf* people are really the problem! (they are not so many, aren't
they?). And for them the board, and Neil, "have to be tough".


3. To put in place some self-regulating system, like a semi-automatic
"filter". A filter easy to put in place and to run, clearly understandable
for users, not time-consuming for OEIS team.
For instance, a submission enter the base if the author is well known. Or if
he has a published paper in a maths journal, or....
If not known (or known as an amateur), any new submission is "in quarantine"
until it has been reviewed by a peer (as Zak proposed).
Such a process of direction of (= to direct) the submissions can be
automated.

About the hot point of "interesting-ness" (which is only a part of the
reviewing), there are three sort of sequences:
‹evidently interesting ones
‹evidently junk (which should be automatiquely rejected)
‹problematic ones *for which only* arises the problem (of wether to enter
them, or not).
   ‹> Idea: 
-to publish them on a separate file;
-peers would rate the ones they consider as interesting;
-as soon a rated problematic sequence reaches a fixed score of
interesting-ness, it enters the base.
(and it is possible to modulate, to wheight the value of the "points". For
instance, one "point" given by a member of the OEIS board could count for x;
one "point" from another patented mathematician for y...)
This could be an easy semi-automatic self regulated process of peer revue
*about the interesting-ness* (and only about this! not to be confused with
the reviewing, and corrections etc, which is a second step).
[the Leroy's idea to "rate" all the sequences rejoices this; but what the
work!)

4. To "quarantine" newcomers until they have proposed acceptable (from the
point of view of the board or Neil) sequences which then are entered in the
base (the more interesting they are, the shorter is the quarantine).



Alexandre

About the so called "play" sequences, FMHO they are a full interesting
chapter per se of OEIS, as are the keyword "word" sequences (a lot of
creativity etc there). It could be possible to label them so that they don't
interfere with mathematical researches.

Have a nice Sunday.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/attachments/20060311/d0e426ed/attachment-0001.htm>