[seqfan] Re: It's a Bug, Not a Feature

Neil Sloane njasloane at gmail.com
Wed Dec 2 16:16:09 CET 2015


This affair seems to me a storm in a tea-cup. I don't believe it happens
very often, and 99% of the time the present system works well.

Best regards
Neil

Neil J. A. Sloane, President, OEIS Foundation.
11 South Adelaide Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904, USA.
Also Visiting Scientist, Math. Dept., Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ.
Phone: 732 828 6098; home page: http://NeilSloane.com
Email: njasloane at gmail.com


On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Hans Havermann <gladhobo at teksavvy.com>
wrote:

> It strikes me as wrong that blame should be accepted where it is difficult
> to see where (if anywhere) it actually lies. A third party edited the
> sequence after Alonso. Al might have thought that the ball was then in that
> third party's ballpark. Do second and third editors after a proposal has
> already been made get that weekly reminder for a re-proposal (or only the
> party that made the initial edit/proposal)? At any rate, I think there is
> an implicit handoff to subsequent editors when multiple edits are made by
> multiple parties. Perhaps there should be a OEIS-server mechanism that only
> the most recent editor who made an edit be reminded that the sequence
> requires a re-proposal.
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 2015, at 10:57 PM, Alonso Del Arte <alonso.delarte at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I apologize. I neglected to follow up and forgot about it. I should have
> > followed up.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>


More information about the SeqFan mailing list