Re: FIS2002 in ENTROPY

"Pedro C. Mariju�n" wrote:

> Dear colleagues
>
> Yesterday I sent a message to the list proposing a tentative scheme for
> having some conventional Proceedings in just three weeks, but the list
> server has not distributed it, for 'checksum matching' reasons it says.
>
> Probably the list server is quite wise and the scheme was unworkable.
> Rather than Proceedings, a more prudent idea exchanged with Shu-Kun is that
> the Journal Entropy publishes a Conference Report comprehending those
> papers that can be reasonably processed during the next two weeks.
>
> Then I should receive all these contributing papers as soon as possible,
> (necessarily in Word format), I will OK them, or will provide a default
> review if necessary, and then the authors have to immediately contact
> Shu-Kun about the technicalities related to preparing a final format along
> the Entropy standards.
>
> best wishes
>
> Pedro
>
> PS. Following with the suggestions for fis futures by John H and Ted, let
> me add the idea, already mentioned months ago, of having an external
> invitee, with one or two fisers acting as a sort of 'hosts' and taking care
> of moderation; it could be another interesting experience. Then, during
> next months any fiser might reserve the list, eg for one month or two, in
> order to try that experience, or to attempt any other new modality
> conducing to more or less focused discussions as we have had during the
> conference sessions. Also, a theme hovering around these messages on fis
> futures is whether we should think on having some formal organization,
> maybe including a board and a minimal distribution of basic functions (eg,
> organization, financing). Keeping a very loose organization has advantages,
> but also inconveniences... or is it too premature that we think on a FIS
> society?

Dear Pedro,
Thank you for your publication proposal. With this e-mail, I am sending you
one of my two papers in the Word format for your consideration.

Sincerely,
   Mark