[seqfan] Re: "Suggested Projects" page on the wiki

[Charles Greathouse]

> Seems that there is no generally approved policy in that Q.

My general feeling is that b-files should be limited to 10,000 terms
except in unusual cases and for sequences which are difficult to
calculate.  I don't mind having the million-term file at A004394, for
example -- though even in that case it's zipped and so not a true
b-file.

> it'd be nice -while one EIC is enough to approve new submissions-
> if TWO EICs will be required to reject:

If you look at
https://oeis.org/wiki/Deleted_sequences
this is already the usual procedure.  In fact the situation is better
(in that sense) than it seems: for example, in the recent case of
A198080 only R. J. Mathar's name appears, but in fact I approved the
deletion so there were two Editors-in-Chief involved.

Nevertheless I don't think I would support this in general.
Eventually we'll have to deal with spammers in the OEIS (we've already
had spambot-generated accounts) and I'd hate to tie our own hands.
Also, on a personal level, I trust the other EiCs; in general I wonder
if we shouldn't move in the other direction (giving more
responsibility to the Associate Editors).

> isn't it too much to suggest that EIC shouldn't approve his own submissions -
> as it's usual in professional publications.

Are you talking about new sequences or just edits?

I make a great number of purely editorial changes and I don't think
it's inappropriate to approve these.  This includes correcting typos,
updating references, fixing broken links, correcting offsets, adding
missing attributions and Index links, etc.

On the other hand I think that new submissions should be looked at by
someone other than the submitter, even if the submitter is an EiC.  A
second set of eyes can catch mistakes that would otherwise have been
missed.  I typically have another EiC approve my new sequences, though
I wouldn't mind self-approving if an Associate Editor reviewed the
sequence.  (Of course for most of the life of the Encyclopedia, there
was only one EiC, so self-approval was impossible to avoid!)

Charles Greathouse
Analyst/Programmer
Case Western Reserve University

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Moshe  Levin <moshe.levin at mail.ru> wrote:
> But, plz,
> have a look at history of A001235 (Taxi-cabs), where EIC repeatedly insisted to replace submitted 20000-term b-file
> (already chopped from 100000-term file!) by "standard 10000".
> Seems that there is no generally approved policy in that Q.
> Regards, ML
>
> And, while we are here,
> it'd be nice -while one EIC is enough to approve new submissions-
> if TWO EICs will be required to reject:
> it may help to avoid possible misunderstandings between particular EIC and submitter.
> And the last but not the least:
> isn't it too much to suggest that EIC shouldn't approve his own submissions -
> as it's usual in professional publications.
>
>
> 25 октября 2011, 00:56 от "N. J. A. Sloane" <njas at research.att.com>:
> <...>
>> However, I strongly disagree with your suggestion
>> that b-files should be curtailed to a standard length. The b-files
>> contain the results of extensive computations.
>> Neil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>