On Tue, 17 May 2005, Tony Baechler wrote:
Hi. So, should I just put something together as a draft and post it here or send it to someone in particular?
Yes, please send your drafts of me and Greg, and anyone else you would like to have proofreading for you. . .I can supply a list of some, if you like, and after a few iterations we will hopefully have something ready to send to everyone.
The problem I had last time is that I had someone else who also wanted to do the newsletter asking me what to do. I had to explain that I have no control over the PG lists and in fact really had no more idea of what to do than they did.
After a while, you can send directly to the lists, just as George and Alice did before.
George was surprised that I never got replies back in regards to questions I had asked.
Any time you don't get a reply from me, please resend directly to me, with !@! starting the subject line. . .keep resending.
I think that a team effort is probably best since I do not want to take over MH's portion of the newsletter.
This can either be totally your own newsletter edition, or we can work together, however you like it best, or we can even keep doing separate newsletters.
The part I would do would probably not be very large and would hopefully mostly consist of features sent in by others. I would act as an editor, not a writer. As I understand it, we are talking about editors here, and an editor simply fixes errors in text written by others. I might write a paragraph editorial, but I am not one for verbosity in my writing.
You might upset some editors there, I just had some flaming responses from a few last month when they said this is only proofreading, not editing. This sounds as if you would not be comfortable doing the entire thing. Just let us know what is best for you.
The only other difficulty I could see is that I would probably prefer to send my portion out on Tuesday or Wednesday nights as opposed to Wednesday at
If you send to me Tuesday nights, I can work that in at Wednesday noon, should be just fine.
noon. This means that I would have to receive submissions by Tuesday afternoon so I could fix them in time. That would be subject to change of course and would depend on how much material I would get. If I have a regular group of submitters such as someone to report on DP, someone to review a book or two and someone to comment on a particularly interesting book posted in the last week, I would definitely set my deadline for each week to Tuesday morning. If I only have something trickle in on an irregular basis, this could be extended to Tuesday at midnight or early Wednesday morning.
You are free to make your own deadlines for yourself, and for submissions.
I realize that posting the newsletter to the lists on this time schedule doesn't comply with the PG policy of posting all parts by noon on Wednesday, but the new books part is produced automatically now and I would not really be dealing with that at all, so I don't think my portion is as time-sensitive.
Anyone creating a newsletter is welcome to their own deadlines, except for the progress reports, which should go on Wed. noons.
If this is something that Michael and Greg would like to see me go further on, I will try to put something together. I unfortunately can't manage the newsletter web archives at this time, and again I would not want to do part one or whatever part becomes MH's portion.
We can work that out however we like, don't worry about it. Michael
At 09:58 AM 5/17/2005 -0700, you wrote:
We don't have a set of rules for how an editor should write newsletters, each editor, including Alice, George, Greg, and Michael, has simply done the newsletters as they think best. You are encouraged to write in any manner you like, and to keep writing even when there are others writing, no need for only one way of doing things.