Bulletin Discussion, Again

[ChatOWhitehall@aol.com]

Greetings.
 
I would like to observe that "dictator", "dictatorial", and "democratic"  are 
all very highly charged words. I think it is entirely possible  that people 
will be reluctant to participate in these sorts  of important, but often highly 
politicized, discussions if the discourse is  peppered with this sort of 
inflated rhetoric.
 
Now, to be clear about things, when I wrote, there had been no  suggestion 
here that the position of Editor might be restructured or  partialized. I 
assumed the position would be filled and  defined according to the Bylaws, and I 
still consider  that traditional approach optimal. 
 
Obviously a good Editor should avail himself of  all positive energy and 
sound expertise to hand, and I  believe this has always been the case, but the 
buck must stop somewhere,  and it needs to stop with someone who thinks straight, 
knows what he or she  is doing, and is capable of making a decision and 
acting on it. 
 
I trust it is clear to most here that when I suggest that the  ideal 
candidate should be a responsible genius and enlightened  educator, and that he or she 
should be respected, and allowed to get on with the  job without undue 
interference, I was not advocating that he or she  should establish a petty fiefdom, 
go giddy with power, and run roughshod  over all divergent opinion, to the 
eventual detriment of the  Society? Good.
 
I don't think the Bulletin Advisory Committee was a sound idea. A  Committee 
cannot deploy the authority of the full Board, or  should not be doing so, so 
the efficiency argument fails, and the Editor should  not be subjected to an 
additional level of  supervision not inflicted on other Officers because, aside 
from  the fact that it is insulting, you, in so doing so,  create the 
unfortunate impression that the Board is trying to  disempower that which the Bylaws 
have specifically empowered. I daresay the  Editor took umbrage, and being 
spoken to like a bad dog probably did not help  his mood.
 
I am unconvinced that any formal committee is necessary to ensure  the 
success of the Bulletin. Every AIS member already implicitly bears some  
responsibility for its success, and the problem has typically  been defined not as people 
being denied the right  to contribute at one level or another, but a lack of  
interest on the part of many members in the business of the Society 
generally,  including the Bulletin. My impression is that the Editor has often had to  
beat many bushes with a very big stick to find anyone interested in doing  
what actually needs to be done. 
 
Now, I may as well toss out a couple of scraps of marginal  interest.
 
1) Anent the white space in the Bulletin. Regardless of whose job it is to  
manage that, it has not been well done. It my day we used  some filler 
paragraphs to plug up a few of those holes, and, aside  from an hysteric who thought 
my suggestion that folks  should understand their AIS membership number was 
some Nazi trip, I think  that worked out pretty well. A file of flameproof choice 
bits from classic  older Bulletins, or scraps of letters to the Editor, or 
similar materials,  might be opened so that the layout person could plug them in 
 as needed. 
 
2) With regards the BIS Yearbook: This is a fine  publication, but, speaking 
as a person interested in Irises from many  perspectives, I don't think it is 
vastly superior to the Bulletin when  compared on a year by year basis; indeed 
some of their best stuff  in the past decade has been written on this side of 
the  pond. This should not be interpreted as anti-Brit bias; I subscribe to  
two English horticultural magazines and have done so for years. 
 
3) With regards publishing the Bulletin, as in its physical  production: One 
is hearing rather a lot about Science Press these  days. I don't know what the 
full range of their services and products may be, or  where the buck stops in 
these matters, but some of the material they  have produced is ghastly, all 
nasty slick paper and high  color, really cheesy looking.
 
4) With regard to the idea of a Book Review Editor: This might be a  good 
idea if reviewers,  mindful of their responsibility to the  readers, were 
prepared to be candid, and said readers were prepared  to respect the process. I am 
not sanguine about this,  frankly. I once said on the Iris chat that I had not 
yet made up my mind  about a recent publication, but that on first glance I 
had  been disappointed with it, and someone jumped all over me publicly,  
accusing me, as best I could make out, of harboring  unwholesome attitudes. I still 
don't have a firm opinion of the  damned book, which I have not seen since. I 
have come reluctantly to  the conclusion that some people can respect the 
opinions of  others only when they mirror their own, and the problem seems to be 
getting  worse in our time. This is not enlightened.
 
Now, I need to get back to what I am writing. Each of us  must support 
editors as best we can, and I am still trying to crank out a couple  of square yards 
of deathless prose featuring the  anarchic grammar and death-defying 
rhetorical flights for which I am so  justly famous. 
 
I wish you well in your deliberations.
 
Anner Whitehead

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
Pat Randall <patannran@msn.com>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/