roger said:
>   Bowerbird has warned against proceeding
>   and I respect his historical perspective.
>   Can we avoid the mistakes of the past attempts?

i "warned" against proceeding only because
it will end up being something jon regrets...

so, jon, here's what i can tell you...

your goal is fine, but unless p.g. powers-that-be
change what they have _always_ done in the past,
the goal is not obtainable, and your work wasted.

ask jim what happened when he redid a bad e-text...
end-users basically ignored the new one for the old.

unless _all_ the p.g. powers-that-be _guarantee_
that won't happen to this project, it will be sunk...

(do _not_ let the blanket "yes" that greg always
gives in response to any proposal _fool_ you...
greg himself couldn't put his _own_ proposal
into play back at the start of this year, once it
came up against a too-deadly combination of
(1) reality, (2) whitewashers, and (3) marcello.)

so unless you're happy with the mere fact of
"having done it", even though the downloads
continue to accrue to the old flawed originals,
you're better off simply walking away today...

but if you wanna do it just for fun, go ahead!

if you want more-specific advice, here it is:

1.  maybe it's just me that's confused, but
you don't seem to be very clear on whether
you want to increase the quality of the text,
or of the derivative formats.  i suppose that
you could care about both, but neither side
is all that difficult to obtain, by means that
are relatively straightforward, so i'm unsure
why a big campaign needs to be mounted...
but, you know, have at it, and all that rot.   :+)

2.  doing 10 books is more than enough to
tell you whether you want to do any more...
execute in 10-book chunks, for your sanity.
that way you'll be able to stop without having
to feel that you "failed" in your overall mission.
it will also mean you don't have to recruit first;
and later, if everything works well, your results
will do the recruiting for you.  (see also point 4.)
and perhaps most important of all, you will see
just exactly how much p.g. _really_ supports you.

3.  skip d.p. _entirely._ it's hard enough to battle
through one bureaucracy; two is nigh impossible.
you will _never_ get d.p. to buy into your changes,
because it'll be afraid the behavior will generalize.
besides, you don't _need_ d.p. it's not the proofing
that's the difficult part of this task, it's really not...
all you need is a system to do "continuous proofing",
and roger has already built such a thing. (so have i.)

4.  as for volunteers, have p.g. route some your way.
(that's how d.p. gets its volunteers.) that'll be a good
test of the _true_ p.g. commitment to your project...
you could also recruit from the unhappy volunteers
who are in the process of abandoning d.p. nowadays,
specifically p1/p2 proofers with years of experience.
provide these skilled people with new appreciation!

5.  although the suggestion to go with first editions
_sounds_ good, i'd be careful.  when i've examined
the changes made from one edition to the next one,
it certainly appears that a lot of errors are corrected.
so i'm inclined to think later editions will be "better".
for instance, in "pride and prejudice", see this change:
>   Mrs. Long and her daughters must stand their chance;
>   Mrs. Long and her nieces must stand their chance;
i'm guessing whichever one came _later_ was _correct_.
first editions appeal to collectors, not text-obsessives.

***

in summary...

absolutely, many p.g. e-texts need to be improved!

sadly, however, the p.g. bureaucracy often resists it.

-bowerbird