You are touching here the problem of the (lack of) editorial policy of PG / PGDP.
Why is this a problem? And if you see it as a problem, why don't you fix it? Jon Ingram thought that PG was missing good, complete editions of Chaucer and Pope and Dryden and Wordsworth, but instead of trying to tell me what to scan, he started scanning complete editions of those authors. It's a much more productive solution.
All this makes for a not very coherent, consistent editorial policy. I guess literature people can easily criticize the PG French catalog (some very obscure books, and some blatant misses).
It's called a library. I'm sitting in a library that reached two million volumes a few years ago, and they have some very obscure books, and at the same time has some blatant misses. (For example, they have only 10 volumes of Edgar Rice Burroughs, and half of those are in special collections.)
They're not hackers, they don't have this culture of "let's get involved, roll up our sleeves and change the world", but still they could be useful to PG.
How? Like many volunteer groups, we already have many people who want to run things already. Like many successful volunteer groups, PG goes out of its way to give a lot of freedom to the people actually doing the work. If they're not willing to roll up their sleeves and do something, how can they be useful to PG? -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm