Re: [TASS] publication of variable stars

[Chris Albertson <chrisja@jps.net>]

Michael Gutzwiller wrote:
>
> In general I agree with Chris, we need some way to categorize how "good" a
> variable candidate is.  Chris' comments and Tom's canonization method left
> out an important detail.  Who's the pope?  Who gets to decide when a
> candidate moves up the ladder?

If we make Joe the pope then it's "Joe's List".  I think we want a
"TASS List" so it should be some kind of group effort or at least
a decentralized effort.

Burried in my suggestion
was that we record _who_ promoted the star and _why_.  I guess this implies that
there is more then one person who we trust to bless stars and that there might
be
a few different reasons for blessing one.

We could agree to a rule like "you can't second your own nomination".
In other words the same person can't promote a star twice.  If you found the
candidate you can't do either of the next two promotions.  This way three
people would have to look at a star before it makes the "A List".

Maybe that is to harsh and we just say every action requires two people to
agree.  One to suggest an action and one to review it.

I like Tom's idea for a waiting period.  17 years is a bit long but a few
weeks or month or so between stages on canonization is a good idea.

I don't care much about the details but I think the "process" should
a) take some time
b) Involve a "few"( 2 ~ 4) people saying "Yes". and
c) Give others notification and time so they can raise objections
d) Provide some way to remove mistakes.

The database should track whatever process we agree on.  The software
should enforce some of the rules.

--
   --Chris Albertson             home: chrisja@jps.net
     Redondo Beach, California   work: calbertson@logicon.com