Re: [gutvol-d] Dear Jon and Bowerbird
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Tinsley" <jtinsley@pobox.com>
How say the rest of you -- should we erase the graffiti?
Well, I think we can all agree most of the problem is one particular person. As someone who has been "dragged into a mudfight" with this person before, I know how easy it is. All of his negative qualities not-withstanding ... he is an amazingly good troll. Jon, while in this instance is posting a high noise-to-signal ratio, has on many occasions posted some very well thoughtout and useful information. While some out there may disagree with how far he wants PG to go on the meta-data front, he has some very good ideas in this area and has shown a willingness to discuss constructively. The other person in the matter has not shown any of these good qualities. I think we should ban bowerbird permanently from the list. In my opinion, the noise on this list drops to a very low level when he goes away for short periods. While no one will be surprised that I advocate banning bowerbird, I think this is something he has brought upon himself. Josh
Josh wrote:
Jim Tinsley wrote:
How say the rest of you -- should we erase the graffiti?
Well, I think we can all agree most of the problem is one particular person. As someone who has been "dragged into a mudfight" with this person before, I know how easy it is. All of his negative qualities not-withstanding ... he is an amazingly good troll.
Jon, while in this instance is posting a high noise-to-signal ratio, has on many occasions posted some very well thoughtout and useful information. While some out there may disagree with how far he wants PG to go on the meta-data front, he has some very good ideas in this area and has shown a willingness to discuss constructively.
As Melissa pointed out, and which was very insightful, just parsing the name of 'gutvol-d' means it is a general discussion list for PG volunteers. It does appear the original charter for the group is for those who are active PG volunteers to "talk shop". That is, to talk about how to handle issues met today in doing volunteer work for PG, whatever it may be. (Such as "how do I do this?"). This probably should not include, in hindsight, some of my messages which mostly deal with "where should PG go in the future" or the related "how should PG change to meet new goals" type of messages. I apologize to everyone here for not staying within the charter for gutvol-d. Now Greg did start another group to discuss what I think are "organizational/governance" issues. (The name of that group eludes me -- it's been pretty inactive for quite a while.) I'm not sure if the "future-oriented" ideas are intended to fit into that group -- I sort of think not. If not, then a new group, maybe called 'gutfuture', could be created to discuss these types of thoughts, ideas and proposals. Jon (p.s., thanks Josh.)
I personally don't feel that discussions about the future of Project Gutenberg are out of place here. After all, most of the future direction of PG depends on the volunteers. I also don't feel that Jon has been especially inflammatory in his writings. As Josh said, it's easy to get sucked into a flame war with bowerbird (I am also guilty of posting a couple messages that served no purpose other than that of making a bad situation worse), but I feel that the many contributions of Jon to this list outweigh his small laps in judgement. Also, for those of you who don't remember, it's not a question of whether or not we should ban bowerbird. That decision was already made by Greg. Unfortunately, due to what I believe to be an accidental oversight, when the list was moved to the new server, that ban was not moved with it. The other mistake was made when that ban was not put back in place once it was realized that it had been omitted. Of course, this is all speculation, and I might be way off on my reasoning. Sincerely Aaron Cannon At 08:27 PM 5/15/2005, you wrote:
Josh wrote:
Jim Tinsley wrote:
How say the rest of you -- should we erase the graffiti?
Well, I think we can all agree most of the problem is one particular person. As someone who has been "dragged into a mudfight" with this person before, I know how easy it is. All of his negative qualities not-withstanding ... he is an amazingly good troll.
Jon, while in this instance is posting a high noise-to-signal ratio, has on many occasions posted some very well thoughtout and useful information. While some out there may disagree with how far he wants PG to go on the meta-data front, he has some very good ideas in this area and has shown a willingness to discuss constructively.
As Melissa pointed out, and which was very insightful, just parsing the name of 'gutvol-d' means it is a general discussion list for PG volunteers. It does appear the original charter for the group is for those who are active PG volunteers to "talk shop". That is, to talk about how to handle issues met today in doing volunteer work for PG, whatever it may be. (Such as "how do I do this?").
This probably should not include, in hindsight, some of my messages which mostly deal with "where should PG go in the future" or the related "how should PG change to meet new goals" type of messages. I apologize to everyone here for not staying within the charter for gutvol-d.
Now Greg did start another group to discuss what I think are "organizational/governance" issues. (The name of that group eludes me -- it's been pretty inactive for quite a while.) I'm not sure if the "future-oriented" ideas are intended to fit into that group -- I sort of think not. If not, then a new group, maybe called 'gutfuture', could be created to discuss these types of thoughts, ideas and proposals.
Jon
(p.s., thanks Josh.)
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
-- E-mail: cannona@fireantproductions.com Skype: cannona MSN Messenger: cannona@hotmail.com (Do not send E-mail to the hotmail address.)
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:16:52PM -0500, Aaron Cannon wrote:
... Also, for those of you who don't remember, it's not a question of whether or not we should ban bowerbird. That decision was already made by Greg. Unfortunately, due to what I believe to be an accidental oversight, when the list was moved to the new server, that ban was not moved with it. The other mistake was made when that ban was not put back in place once it was realized that it had been omitted. Of course, this is all speculation, and I might be way off on my reasoning.
It wasn't accidental, and I apologize that it causes so much difficulty for the many people who are unable to simply ignore (intellectually or technically) certain postings from certain people. BB was never banned - he was simply put under moderation. Putting him under moderation was my decision, made after considerable complaints and debate (sound familiar?). Removing the moderation was someone else's decision - you can guess who. Putting the whole list under moderation is viable, but only with clear moderation guidelines and at least two active moderators (active means multiple times per day). I still think modern, thinking people should just be able to ignore messages from people they don't care to hear from -- or seek technical facilities for helping them to do so. But clearly there is more call for stronger measures, which remove such responsibilities from all list subscribers and instead shunt them to a few centralized individuals. -- Greg
Greg Newby wrote:
Putting the whole list under moderation is viable, but only with clear moderation guidelines and at least two active moderators (active means multiple times per day).
I think, if technically feasible, to put certain person(s) under moderation would suffice. Or even to ban them altogether. This way you don't need much moderation and one person can easily do it. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
Jon Noring <jon@noring.name> writes:
This probably should not include, in hindsight, some of my messages which mostly deal with "where should PG go in the future" or the related "how should PG change to meet new goals" type of messages. I apologize to everyone here for not staying within the charter for gutvol-d.
Nonsense ;) Please continue to post your improvement proposal here. Neither your technical background info nor even bowerbird's articles are offending or disturbing or "noise" - all these poeple who start meta discussions are the noise markers. These noise marker must learn to accept criticisms on their work. -- http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | ,__o | _-\_<, | (*)/'(*) Key fingerprint = F138 B28F B7ED E0AC 1AB4 AA7F C90A 35C3 E9D0 5D1C
Jon Noring wrote:
Now Greg did start another group to discuss what I think are "organizational/governance" issues. (The name of that group eludes me -- it's been pretty inactive for quite a while.)
"pg-planning" planning@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/planning "A planning discussion for changes to the PG organizational structure." http://www.gutenberg.org/events/planning.shtml Active March to May 2004, pretty much. As I recall, we didn't make much progress. Not even consensus on a PG mission statement. -Michael Dyck
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:33:57AM -0700, Michael Dyck wrote:
Jon Noring wrote:
Now Greg did start another group to discuss what I think are "organizational/governance" issues. (The name of that group eludes me -- it's been pretty inactive for quite a while.)
"pg-planning" planning@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/planning
"A planning discussion for changes to the PG organizational structure." http://www.gutenberg.org/events/planning.shtml
Active March to May 2004, pretty much. As I recall, we didn't make much progress. Not even consensus on a PG mission statement.
-Michael Dyck
Actually, MH & I made a *lot* of progress during that time, as did many other groups & individuals. There wasn't much discussion on the pg-planning list, though. We created several new key documents in http://gutenberg.org/about and provided added clarity on various things. These documents were announced over many (like 6) months of newsletters, but never got a whole lot of response or discussion, and none that I recall on gutvol-d. -- Greg
Greg Newby wrote:
We created several new key documents in http://gutenberg.org/about and provided added clarity on various things. These documents were announced over many (like 6) months of newsletters, but never got a whole lot of response or discussion, and none that I recall on gutvol-d.
I don't read the newsletter at all because its too confusing. If those documents would have been posted on this list, maybe they'd got more discussion. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:45:29PM +0200, Marcello Perathoner wrote:
Greg Newby wrote:
We created several new key documents in http://gutenberg.org/about and provided added clarity on various things. These documents were announced over many (like 6) months of newsletters, but never got a whole lot of response or discussion, and none that I recall on gutvol-d.
I don't read the newsletter at all because its too confusing.
We've been seeking newsletter editors for a *long* time.
If those documents would have been posted on this list, maybe they'd got more discussion.
Feel free to open such a discussion. The documents are at http://gutenberg.org/about are a good starting point. There is always time for more discussion, and updated documents. -- Greg
Greg Newby wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:45:29PM +0200, Marcello Perathoner wrote:
I don't read the newsletter at all because its too confusing.
We've been seeking newsletter editors for a *long* time.
Given that Part 2 of the weekly newsletter is now generated automatically, and Part 1 ("Founder's Comments") is written/compiled by Michael Hart, it's unclear what a newsletter editor would *do*. Is there a job description somewhere? -Michael Dyck
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 12:15:28PM -0700, Michael Dyck wrote:
Greg Newby wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:45:29PM +0200, Marcello Perathoner wrote:
I don't read the newsletter at all because its too confusing.
We've been seeking newsletter editors for a *long* time.
Given that Part 2 of the weekly newsletter is now generated automatically, and Part 1 ("Founder's Comments") is written/compiled by Michael Hart, it's unclear what a newsletter editor would *do*. Is there a job description somewhere?
Alice Wood used to be the newsletter editor, for a year or so. Michael picked this task up again reluctantly. The ideal scenario is for him to send in some "founder's comments" to the Part I newsletter editor, but not to do the whole thing. The main activity of the newsletter editor is to produce a weekly newsletter (also a monthly, but that's just extracted from the prior month's weeklies). The schedule is for a draft to go out on Sunday or Monday, then the newsletter to be released noon Wednesday (all US Central Time). The specific features etc. are up to the editor. We have ongoing needs for announcements, requests, etc., but the rest is open: how-tos, book reviews, quotes, interviews, events... It would also be nice to have active management of our newsletter archives, too. Qualifications include: - excellent attention to detail - proficient in written English - able to interact well via email (periodic phone calls as needed) - available during the deadline "crunch" times - proficient in "plain text" formating - interest in literary works - able to accept input & suggestions from many constituents My estimate is this would start at 6-10 hours per week. The time commitment could shrink (due to better efficiency and some automation) or grow (due to greater involvement in PG activities, and further outreach). It's feasible for there to be a team doing this, or a "main" editor plus some backup editors. Inquiries or suggestions welcome! -- Greg
Hi. Michael Hart is requesting people to fill in for him to do part one. My understanding is that he wants someone to take it over entirely. Personally, I miss the former portion done by Alice Wood. I would still be interested in editing this part of the newsletter, but people stopped responding to my email. I was in communication with Greg, Michael and a few others but I was never told what I was supposed to do or how. I gathered that I was supposed to draft something, but I was never told just how this would be sent to the list or if I was allowed to post to the newsletter list. I almost never read part one now either because it isn't organized well and is mostly a boiler plate of the same thing in every weekly issue. I would like to informally interview DP people, posters, book producers, etc on a weekly or monthly basis. Nothing fancy, just something less formal than a full interview. Hopefully some clear guidelines can be given to me to work out something like this. I think there is still room for more from the PG newsletter if it is done and organized correctly. At 12:15 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, you wrote:
Given that Part 2 of the weekly newsletter is now generated automatically, and Part 1 ("Founder's Comments") is written/compiled by Michael Hart, it's unclear what a newsletter editor would *do*. Is there a job description somewhere?
Tony, I just sent a draft to Michael for the newsletter yesterday. A little reorganization, cleaning up mostly. But I like your ideas. Perhaps a team is the answer... Anyway, I too lack the responses to know what all to do. But I think Michael is just after some rough drafts to get an idea if the volunteer volunteering can actually do the job before handing it over. So send him something. Forgive the possible double posting of both you and the list. But my posts don't seem to go through to the list in most of the time.-erin Tony Baechler wrote:
Hi. Michael Hart is requesting people to fill in for him to do part one. My understanding is that he wants someone to take it over entirely. Personally, I miss the former portion done by Alice Wood. I would still be interested in editing this part of the newsletter, but people stopped responding to my email. I was in communication with Greg, Michael and a few others but I was never told what I was supposed to do or how. I gathered that I was supposed to draft something, but I was never told just how this would be sent to the list or if I was allowed to post to the newsletter list. I almost never read part one now either because it isn't organized well and is mostly a boiler plate of the same thing in every weekly issue. I would like to informally interview DP people, posters, book producers, etc on a weekly or monthly basis. Nothing fancy, just something less formal than a full interview. Hopefully some clear guidelines can be given to me to work out something like this. I think there is still room for more from the PG newsletter if it is done and organized correctly.
At 12:15 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, you wrote:
Given that Part 2 of the weekly newsletter is now generated automatically, and Part 1 ("Founder's Comments") is written/compiled by Michael Hart, it's unclear what a newsletter editor would *do*. Is there a job description somewhere?
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
In case you all are unaware, there is a wiki setup for the purpose of editing the newsletter. Not sure if this helps, but just thought I'd mention it. Sincerely Aaron Cannon At 08:25 AM 5/17/2005, you wrote:
Tony,
I just sent a draft to Michael for the newsletter yesterday. A little reorganization, cleaning up mostly. But I like your ideas. Perhaps a team is the answer... Anyway, I too lack the responses to know what all to do. But I think Michael is just after some rough drafts to get an idea if the volunteer volunteering can actually do the job before handing it over. So send him something.
Forgive the possible double posting of both you and the list. But my posts don't seem to go through to the list in most of the time.-erin
Tony Baechler wrote:
Hi. Michael Hart is requesting people to fill in for him to do part one. My understanding is that he wants someone to take it over entirely. Personally, I miss the former portion done by Alice Wood. I would still be interested in editing this part of the newsletter, but people stopped responding to my email. I was in communication with Greg, Michael and a few others but I was never told what I was supposed to do or how. I gathered that I was supposed to draft something, but I was never told just how this would be sent to the list or if I was allowed to post to the newsletter list. I almost never read part one now either because it isn't organized well and is mostly a boiler plate of the same thing in every weekly issue. I would like to informally interview DP people, posters, book producers, etc on a weekly or monthly basis. Nothing fancy, just something less formal than a full interview. Hopefully some clear guidelines can be given to me to work out something like this. I think there is still room for more from the PG newsletter if it is done and organized correctly.
At 12:15 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, you wrote:
Given that Part 2 of the weekly newsletter is now generated automatically, and Part 1 ("Founder's Comments") is written/compiled by Michael Hart, it's unclear what a newsletter editor would *do*. Is there a job description somewhere?
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
-- E-mail: cannona@fireantproductions.com Skype: cannona MSN Messenger: cannona@hotmail.com (Do not send E-mail to the hotmail address.)
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Tony Baechler wrote:
Hi. Michael Hart is requesting people to fill in for him to do part one. My understanding is that he wants someone to take it over entirely. Personally, I miss the former portion done by Alice Wood. I would still be interested in editing this part of the newsletter, but people stopped responding to my email. I was in communication with Greg, Michael and a few others but I was never told what I was supposed to do or how. I gathered that I was supposed to draft something, but I was never told just how this would be sent to the list or if I was allowed to post to the newsletter list. I almost never read part one now either because it isn't organized well and is mostly a boiler plate of the same thing in every weekly issue. I would like to informally interview DP people, posters, book producers, etc on a weekly or monthly basis. Nothing fancy, just something less formal than a full interview. Hopefully some clear guidelines can be given to me to work out something like this. I think there is still room for more from the PG newsletter if it is done and organized correctly.
At 12:15 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, you wrote:
Given that Part 2 of the weekly newsletter is now generated automatically, and Part 1 ("Founder's Comments") is written/compiled by Michael Hart, it's unclear what a newsletter editor would *do*. Is there a job description somewhere?
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. Michael
Hi. So, should I just put something together as a draft and post it here or send it to someone in particular? 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. George was surprised that I never got replies back in regards to questions I had asked. I think that a team effort is probably best since I do not want to take over MH's portion of the newsletter. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 10:40:25PM -0700, 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? The problem I had last time is that I had someone else who also wanted to do the newsletter asking me what to
Hi, Tony. Did you get a response from this? The short answer: 1. Email Michael <hart@pobox.com> to get the advance newsletter copies. Then, send any suggested changes or fixes. 2. If you have additional content, like reviews or anything else, send it to Michael. Yes, it would be nice for Michael to *not* be the main newsletter editor. To move towards that, the method he and I support is to have a transitional "parallel" newsletter... perhaps the same as the current newsletter, or perhaps substantially different. If you, or a group of people, are able to consistently produce a useful newsletter then you'll find that your newsletter is "the" newsletter. This is how we've handled such transitions in the past. Unfortunately, past newsletter editors have eventually gone onto different activities, and the job keeps falling back onto Michael (or sometimes, briefly, to me). This is why we don't just "turn over" the newsletter to people who express an interest. Instead, we try to have a gradual try-out period. I'm very sorry to hear that you didn't get the guidance or feedback or thanks you needed to be effective. I know you've been looking at the newsletter for months now, and are interested in stepping up to a higher level of activity. If all else fails, I can enable you to send your newsletter directly -- just get in touch with me directly. But to start, I would like to try what I've outlined above. If you're having trouble getting a response from Michael, include !@! in the start of the Subject line, and re-send. You can also send to me, and I'll bother him on your behalf :-) How does this sound? Best, -- Greg
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. George was surprised that I never got replies back in regards to questions I had asked. I think that a team effort is probably best since I do not want to take over MH's portion of the newsletter. 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.
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 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. 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.
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.
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.
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Tony Baechler wrote:
Hi. Michael Hart is requesting people to fill in for him to do part one. My understanding is that he wants someone to take it over entirely. Personally, I miss the former portion done by Alice Wood. I would still be interested in editing this part of the newsletter, but people stopped responding to my email. I was in communication with Greg, Michael and a few others but I was never told what I was supposed to do or how. I gathered that I was supposed to draft something, but I was never told just how this would be sent to the list or if I was allowed to post to the newsletter list. I almost never read part one now either because it isn't organized well and is mostly a boiler plate of the same thing in every weekly issue. I would like to informally interview DP people, posters, book producers, etc on a weekly or monthly basis. Nothing fancy, just something less formal than a full interview. Hopefully some clear guidelines can be given to me to work out something like this. I think there is still room for more from the PG newsletter if it is done and organized correctly.
As for the organization of PT1, the complaints are self-defeating: if it is really mostly boilerplate, then the organization is obvious to anyone who had read it before, not to mention a table of contents. The portions that change the most from week to week are also obvious, and thus whether it is your desire to only read the parts that change, or to only read the weekly review of new eBooks, it is quite simple, you know where to look. Michael
Greg Newby wrote:
I don't read the newsletter at all because its too confusing.
We've been seeking newsletter editors for a *long* time.
There are 2 reasons for my not volunteering ... the other one is: I'm not a native speaker :-)
Feel free to open such a discussion. The documents are at http://gutenberg.org/about are a good starting point. There is always time for more discussion, and updated documents.
First lets get <unnamed person> under moderation. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
participants (10)
-
Aaron Cannon -
Erin M -
Greg Newby -
Jon Noring -
Joshua Hutchinson -
Karl Eichwalder -
Marcello Perathoner -
Michael Dyck -
Michael Hart -
Tony Baechler