The following is what I think represents the consensus resolution,
or at least the latest suggestion of various issues we have discussed.
These issues should be embedded in the proposal.

$Header: /export/0/perlman/Papers/HFES/RCS/issues.txt,v 1.1 95/03/20 21:09:43 perlman Exp Locker: perlman $

Editor Order:
	currently: Perlman, Green, Wogalter
	Affiliations: include on cover instead of "about the editors"? GKG

Experts:
	will be called Judges

Judges:
	Will not evaluate their own papers.
	Will be recruited, in part, from CSTG-L and HCI Bibliography users.
		Recruit directly using list of most published authors.
	Will NOT be recruited before we get an OK from HFES EC.
	Can/Will be anonymous, by default. GKG
	Eventually:
		Tell them:
			time frame
			time commitment needed
			process (e.g., rate using full papers)
			form of acknowledgement (if approved)
		Ask them:
			will they do it (and how much?)
			what areas they cover
			what proceedings they have

Areas:
	Okay for now, but will probably be tuned based on quantity of quality.
	No current place for guidelines/standards, although we may
		want to avoid "dated" or "datable" material.

Years:
	1983, 1984 and 1987 (the last for practical reasons)
	have been suggested as starting years, with 1994 as the ending year.
	Let's choose 1983 to be conservative, keeping in mind that
	the papers that get selected should have enduring relevance.
	For 1987-present, we will use HCI Bibliography abstracted entries,
	which can be emailed or printed and mailed.
	For the earlier four years, I will try to OCR scan the first pages,
	but will fall back to photocopying if time does not permit.
	For earlier years especially, HCI-relevant papers will have to be
	identified, which is a non-trivial task.

Cumulative References:
	The issue is whether we provide a cumulative list of references,
	including the ones in the collection (unlike the Warnings refs).
	I think this would be a good idea, but that we should consider
	providing an online version, probably on floppy disk, extracted
	from the HCI Bibliography, and perhaps with some of the software
	(e.g., Visual Basic, HyperCard) people have written to access it.

	Another issue is whether we include abstract-only articles.
	Georgia votes no.  I think that some are useful (e.g., panels,
	demonstrations), and that to edit at that level might be
	a lot of work for little gain (given that most of the material
	is already online).

	It is currently undecided whether we will have abstracted
	papers as in the Warnings collection.  These might be used
	if there is no electronic version of the list of all HCI
	articles, or even if we want to highlight some papers
	that were close but not selected.

Stronger Finish to the Introduction:
	Georgia suggested a more flowery finish to the introduction,
	but I could not bring myself to write a planned section
	of what it was like to review the past 12 years of HF(E)S.