on putting forward the colleagues’ papers for publication in the ARAP yearbook

Author sends a copy of Sanderson's paper to R.W.Floyd to review it by the middle of April. He plans to be at the Conference in Atlantic City and if Floyd will be there they can meet.

C.Shaw suggests to all members of Editorial Board to discuss an important policy question regarding publication of previously published material.

discussion of the matters of publication of the next volume of “Annual Review in Automatic Programming”

Author constructively criticizes Mr.Bemer's article which is "for the most part devoted to the political history of ALGOL in the USA rather than the scientific history of ALGOL in the computational world" as well as expresses his opinion about papers of Brown and Sanderson.

Author gives detailed comments on the Bob Bemer's article.

Author briefly recenses the R.Bemer's article "A history of ALGOL".

Authors send the report "Formal Definition of PL/1" to submit a summary of it for publication in the Annual Review.

Author approves of the topic of the paper and asks to send the finished paper by July 1. To speed the editorial machinery, addressees can send the paper copies to each of the members of the Editorial Board.

Reply to the letter of 28 March. Author continues discussion of the Bemer's paper "History of ALGOL". They will have to choose between publishing it with the title changed and rejecting it.

Author is enclosing a copy of a paper by G.F.Coulouris.

Author approves of the addressee's topic and suggests to send him one copy of the paper, which he would duplicate and distribute to each of the editors. If the paper was not reviewed and accepted in time, it could be published in the next volume.

Enclosed the author sends an abstract of the paper that he would like to present for a consideration of editors.

The author enjoyed Sanderson's paper but he and the other editors consider this paper more suitable for publication in a journal than in the Annual Review.

The author supports the addressee's and Ershov's rejection of Brown's paper. He also reiterates his support for publication of the other papers.

The author informs of the Editorial Board's decision not to publish the addressee's paper, because so much of it has been previously published.

The addressee is said about a negative decision of the Editorial Board. A copy of the reviewer's comments on the article is enclosed. If he will do further work on it, he can submit the paper for the next issue of the Review.

The author says that the Editorial Board has decided the paper would not be appropriate for publication in the Annual Review. A copy of the reviewer's comments is attached.