Michael Hart <hart@pglaf.org> wrote:
All of the "hot button" issues are simply taken from the lower echelon media coverage to point out how much they have been hidden, which is the primary point, not the actual content. However, if you have issues with the actual content, perhaps a letter to this Newsletter, as well as to the original media source would engender a conversation. Again, I would have to run this by our CEO.
Shouldn't the purpose of the weekly PG newsletter be to only communicate news directly relevant to PG's activities? Let me suggest that the PG community be properly polled, asking them what *they* would like the newsletter to contain, its total length, etc. Then structure the newsletter per the prevailing view. It's clear that quite a few major PG and DP volunteers don't read the newsletter any more, and some have cited the length and the inclusion of stuff not related to PG as factors. To not listen to them is sort of self-defeating, since PG *is* the many volunteers who contribute thousands of hours of time to the cause. Jon