Re: Bulletin Discussion, Again

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

I have heard much comment about giving total control
to an editor so that he can be creative and
innovative. I believe to be creative and innovative
there must be changes. Yet it seems the same voices
that are extolling the discretion of an editor have
resisted change. Bruce was wedded to the boiler plate
that makes up as much as ninety percent of the January
issue and a substantial portion of the other issues.
If you agree that this should not change than I guess
you vote for editor discretion. But what if the new
editor doesnt agree with having all this business in
the bulletin. Than I suppose the forces for discretion
would then want an advisory committee. I believe the
advisory committee should be disbanded. It only had
one meeting face to face and not every member was even
told of its time, so not everyone was there. The
people present actually did not try to impose anything
on the editor, but presented concerns that had been
voiced by the membership in the surveys and tried to
offer help in whatever direction the editor chose to
respond to those concerns. As the collector of the
membership survey I can say that half of the
membership is in favor of change and half likes
everything to stay the same. There has been no
compromise. I believe the numbers for change actually
outweigh the numbers for the status quo because we see
a progressive decline in members and the percentage of
new members that renew after a trial is rather low. 
If we were as perfect as some imply I feel this would
not be the case. Structure such as involving more
people in decision making can only go so for. If
people in control are not listening than structure
makes no difference. If an editor gives many people
his ear he may not need a staff or advisors but if he
chooses a rigid position it matters not whether those
helpers are provided.
--- 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/