While I agree with McCormac's aims (January ‘Forum’), which are to improve publications and meetings, and make them more significant and interesting, I don't think he has found the panacea nor has he pointed in the right direction in many cases. It is well and good to suggest eliminating mediocre talks and papers. But who shall we set up as judges of mediocrity and quality? Specifically, should one change the present system of editors and referees? We know the goals; we need mechanisms.