RE: GSC 00279 00321 paper

["Knowles, Richard (CORP, Consultant)" <Richard.Knowles@corporate.ge.com>]

Oscar wrote:

>>I like TASS the way it is, and I support your position about this.

Amen!

Also, these discussions about publishing are also informing the rest of us
lurkers
who potentially would like very much to do the same sort of thing, but who
need
a bit more education into the way "the big kids" do it.  I very much
encourage the
discussion!

Rich Knowles

-----Original Message-----
From: Oscar Saa [mailto:osaa@ctio.noao.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:52 AM
To: Tom Droege
Cc: aah@nofs.navy.mil; tass@listserv.wwa.com
Subject: Re: GSC 00279 00321 paper


Dear Tom,
I know I have done nothing as yet ( real work for TASS )
but, I want to say that I'm with you here ...
I like TASS the way it is, and I support your position about this.

Oscar


Tom Droege wrote:

> I second most of this.  Particularly the part about keeping a thick skin
> and repeated posting to the tass list.  You will get lots of criticism,
> some of it even constructive.  ;^)  In the end you will have a much better
> paper than if you just went off on your own.
>
> Don't be discouraged Michael K.  It is going to take longer than you
> expected.  But you will end up with a better publication.  Do not fear
that
> someone will publish first.  We run in the open, so someone could steal
the
> data and publish ahead of you.  That is OK.  Everyone will know what
> happened.  You will gain by being thorough and will get proper credit in
> the end for your good work.
>
> I particularly agree with the reputation issues.  Still, I stand by my
> "tass has no rules" position.  Someone could set up a parallel
organization
> with rules, but it will not be tass.  My position is that tass as an
> association of people does certain things.  Individuals or groups of
> individuals publish.  So the reputation is for individuals.  tass (I hope)
> is reputation neutral.  This at least as to results.  The reputation I
wish
> to guard for tass is that of an association of individuals who have
> gathered together to work in an area of science.  Here I will press
> strongly (as one individual) to support the free interchange of ideas
which
> I think is the basis of good science.
>