With regard to making a DP editorial board: The proofreaders are not a machine. They will not proof whatever is put in front of them with the same willingness or vigor. I attribute much of the increase in productivity at DP between summer 2003 and the present on the transition from a system that presented projects on a more-or-less first-in, first-out basis, to one that tried to ensure that at least some "easy" English material is present at all times. More recently, this system has been broadened so that (in English and French anyway, our two most popular languages), several genre-based queues attempt to ensure that at least one or two projects in that genre are available for proofing at any time. (This also provides an incentive for content providers to provide material that the proofers enjoy proofing more. Such material releases faster, and most human beings, on some level, are suckers for instant gratification.) If there existed a generally-agreed-upon canon of books that was in some sense more important to get into PG faster than other books, the best non-coercive way I can think of to encourage work on these books is to give them a queue of their own at DP. If proofers enjoyed working on them, it would become a fast queue, and this would encourage content providers to scan books off the list. However, I don't really see the idiosyncracies of what is and is not in PG as a problem. Every library smaller than the major national libraries exhibits the idiosyncracies of its acquisitions department. Every book in PG has this much to recommend it: someone thought it worthwhile enough to go through the effort of putting it there. -- RS