[TYPES] Two-tier reviewing process

[Mitchell Wand]

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Philip Wadler <wadler at inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list]
>
> Just a personal plea here.
>
> The meaning of X, Y, Z was fixed clearly in Nierstrasz's paper:
>
> X: I am an expert in the subject area of this paper.
> Y: I am knowledgeable in the area, though not an expert.
> Z: I am not an expert. My evaluation is that of an informed outsider.
>
>
I think the problem that Benjamin points out is really two problems:  I may
be an expert in the general subject are of the paper, but not in the
particular corner that this paper is exploring.  Or it may be that I am an
expert in the subject area, but the paper is sufficiently unclear that I may
have gotten it wrong.  I suspect that these often coincide.

Perhaps it might be helpful to subdivide the X rating into two:

X1: I am an expert in the general subject area of this paper, and I have
good confidence in my evaluation.
X2: I am an expert in the general subject area of this paper, but I do not
have good confidence in my evaluation.

This is not a issue for Y and Z reviews, which already announce themselves
as less important.

Just a thought.
--Mitch