[Spellyans] SWF review results.

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Sat Apr 5 20:32:43 BST 2014

On 5 Apr 2014, at 16:21, Craig Weatherhill <craig at agantavas.org> wrote:

> I think the facts about respondents need to be formally challenged.  That, and the non-publication/circulation of vital elements of the Review does not fill one with either confidence or trust.

The non-circulation of the actual anonymized submissions undermines confidence in the whole affair. It was not conducted openly. When the submissions were requested, the request was just ignored. Not refused, with some reason. Ignored. Instead, some poorly-redacted list of the headers of the submissions, without any argument to explain what they meant, was sent out. When I protested about this, I was ignored. No, not entirely ignored. I was invited to come over to talk to the management group about it.

But I didn’t want to spend hundreds of pounds to talk to the management group. I wanted a set of papers sent to me. Had they been sent to me, I could have written up my own review of them, and made that available as a resource to the Partnership and to the Review Board. I mean, I’m an expert on phonology and orthography, after all. All the Partnership and the Review Board would have to do was ignore my submission. 

The SWF Review was a failure. 

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

More information about the Spellyans mailing list