[Spellyans] SWF review results.

Christian Semmens christian.semmens at gmail.com
Sat Apr 5 23:43:27 BST 2014

And it needs to be flatly rejected.

On 5 April 2014 20:32, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:

> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20140405/a8039a03/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list