Intercom April 1996

["tina (c.l.) klein" <cklein -at- BNR -dot- CA>]

I haven't seen the intercom in question. However, recently I had a
idea regarding information databases. I found it quite interesting,
but I was not so sure of its interest to our profession. So I
opened up a discussion on techwr-l and at the same time drafted
up an abstract proposal for an upcoming conference.

Now while the list members were extremely helpful in confirming that
my hypotheses was of shared interest AND while similar conclusions were
eventually drawn in this discussion group that I had already drawn for
myself, it would never cross my mind to "give credit to major contributors"
in the discussion.

The discussion went off on some very weird tangents. Some of which
had zero relavance to my original posting (from my perspective, at
least.)

This list is a forum for discussion. We are struggling with many
common problems. We may share a common view of the solutions, with
or without discussing them. Some of us just get to the problems
sooner than others...

My two cents.

PS I am also curious about the lead time to publish an article
in the Intercom, and the elapsed time between topics discussed in
this list and being published in the Intrecom. Could someone
knowlegeable in such matters please comment on this?

Date:    Wed, 10 Apr 1996 07:16:00 PDT
From:    Marilynne Smith <mrsmith -at- CTS -dot- COM>
Subject: Re: Intercom April 1996

I agree whole heartedly.  Although I don't really mind someone rehashing our
discussions for the benefit of those who aren't on the list, I most
definitely think the source of this information should be documented and
major contributors given credit.  The "authors" might even go so far as to
ask someone if they mind being quoted.