And on the other end we're hearing the same thing - the GM is there only to manage,
and initiative for change will come from the Board. I'm absolutely not suggesting the Board
is or should be micro or macro managing. I think everyone is expecting that the
Board is about Planning.  You're not? You disagree?

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Greg Newby <gbnewby@pglaf.org> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 06:00:48PM -0800, don kretz wrote:
> That's real good news, Greg, especially if you're talking about flexibility
> on
> the DP side. 100% of the responsibility for evaluating and recommending
> changes to the DP process has been apparently relegated to the DP Board
> of Directors.

I don't think that was the intention of the (relatively) new Board and
new GM.  The Board has ideas, but isn't trying to manage day to day
activity.

> Since you are one of the five directors, you're in the know if anyone is.
> Since
> you represent 20% of the horsepower responsible for coming up with those
> changes, I trust you've been busy.

Indeed, but actually we have not been looking at this level
of detail for changes in the DP processing chain.  The Board
isn't to micromange, and isn't to get in the way of progress.

That said, if you think there are proposals, ideas for change,
etc. that are not getting the attention they deserve, I would
be happy to bring them to the board (or GM, as appropriate) on
anyone's behalf, anonymously if desired.

 -- Greg

> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Greg Newby <gbnewby@pglaf.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 05:33:01PM -0800, Jim Adcock wrote:
> > > ...
> > > If PG were able to easily accept a txt file now and the html version (and
> > > other versions later) not only would readers get some books a year
> > earlier,
> > > but we could probably save some efforts that die and get lost somewhere
> > > between txt complete and html complete. Why does posting have to happen
> > "all
> > > at once" ???
> >
> > It doesn't.  In fact, "extracting" works from DP earlier was a big push
> > I made a couple of years ago.  At that time, such two stage (or other
> > great-than-one stage) output was something that didn't fit well with
> > the workflow.  Maybe that's something that could be revisited.
> >
> > It's important to not double the effort involved at the final posting
> > phase (whitewashing) through such a two stage process.  But there are
> > several good ways of insuring this, which could be incorporated with
> > the process.
> >
> > There is definitely flexibility.
> >
> >  -- Greg
> > _______________________________________________
> > gutvol-d mailing list
> > gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org
> > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
> >
_______________________________________________
gutvol-d mailing list
gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org
http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d