cjs

> Paper that was needed to be archived was archived.

That's good to hear. So where might we find the archived versions of that materials in that donation?

What does "checked for archiving" mean? Is this collection available to the public in any way?

Well, that's better than all them being pulped. But not that much better, if it's all been split up and sent to private collections. I am pretty sure, knowing Jason Scott, that his intent was that this collection should be available to the public in some way, and not split up and effectively hidden.

I agree. I have the same policy when setting up servers: don't have a "primary" and a "backup" server, make both servers production servers and have the code that uses them alternate between them, pick a random one, whatever. (I don't always get to implement this policy, of course.)

This seems to come around on a regular basis, so there's got to be something to it. To summarize my thoughts on it: 1) yes, there are tons of things that could be improved in it, 2) even with such improvements, it's a fairly limited tool, and thus, 3) you can't place any more importance on this than you'd place on, say, a resume.

The most useful part about this tool, in fact, is not the specifics, but to see how the candidate rates himself, and compare your rating of his skills and experience to his own. If your rating and his come out radically different, one of you has a problem. :-)