Dear GCN Circulars Community:                                    03 Feb 99

Recently, I sent out e-mail calling for comments on the content 
of the GCN Circulars; specifically whether "theory" circulars
are acceptable for this forum.  [Please see the URL for a copy
of the original RFC:  http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/circ.rfc.1]

I have started to receive responses on that RFC, however, I would like
to wait about another 5-7 days (to receive more) before drawing a consensus
and establishing revised guidelines for the content of submitted Circulars.

However, in the meantime it appears from the two dozen initial RFC replies
that the community would like to disallow theory-only circulars,  or
at the very least, to create a separate (sub-list; see the filtering idea
in the RFC) for the theory-only-content Circulars.  So, I would like
this e-mail to communicate to the current list of vetted GCN Circular
members the request to refrain from theory-only submissions.  If you have
new observations and would like to discuss how they fit a particular theory,
that will be allowable in this interim period (until the final decission
is made one way or the other).  But submissions which use ONLY previously
published data in the context of a theory or model are NOT allowable.
And further, the utility of "predictive" Circulars (even quantitative
predictions) is quickly becoming of marginal utility now that we are
transitioning into the far-term time domain for GRB990123.  There are
other channels for this type of publication (e.g. astro-ph already has
three papers on GRB990123; models and predictions).

This interim policy is a slight reversal of the trend established
between the original creation of the Circulars and the 1st RFC.
Possibly, this reversal will elicit comments from the theory community,
and those comments will be welcomed.  All comments are welcomed,
but I would encourage you to re-read the original RFC before doing so,
and if you are a newly-added member to the list, then please check
the URL listed above for a copy of the original RFC before commenting.
I welcome ALL comments (pro and con), and all suggestions and alternatives.
I have said it many times in the past, but it bares repeating: I need to know
what the community wants, because if it is not useful then it won't be used.

Sincerely,

Scott Barthelmy                      NASA-GSFC, Code 661, Greenbelt, MD   20771
PHONE:  301-286-3106                 (work)
FAX:    301-286-1684                 (1st choice,  -1682 2nd choice)
EMAIL:  scott@lheamail.gsfc.nasa.gov
PAGER:  1-800-SKY-PAGE, PIN 2618712  (by phone, voice menu/instructions)
PAGER:  2618712@skymail.com          (by email, 240 characters max per message)
WEB:    http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn