Re: Bulletin Discussion, Again

[Robt R Pries <rpries@sbcglobal.net>]

--- CEMahan@aol.com wrote:

> I would like to add my two cents to the discussion
> of the Bulletin and the  
> editor's position. For the most part, I agree with
> comments that Anner and Will 
>  contributed to the discussion. I have no idea what
> a "Managing Editor" does  
> vis-a-vis the "Editor". There is no "Managing
> Editor" mentioned in the 
> Bulletin,  is there? Every editor has his/her own
> style. Too much formalization can 
> be a  detriment to quality as can too many "bosses."
>  The best editors are  
> innovators and creators. 
>  
> Two of our finest editors of past years were Keith
> Keppel and Phil Edinger.  
> I think their input and ideas would be useful. 
>  
> As for the formal Advisory Committee, it may be that
> its day came  and 
> passed. The Bulletin is the single most important
> product of the AIS.  Bureaucracy 
> is often the enemy of quality. I apologize for being
> terse, but  I am 
> recovering from surgery and must limit my time on
> the computer. I am doing  fine, so no 
> need to send get well messages. Warm wishes to all, 
> Clarence
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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/