Once upon a time, there was an elist for editors, but unlike any other officer elist, this one was open to any member who wished to subscribe. Lively, fun, cantankerous, helpful, and political… the list content covered all sorts of newsletter production topics and careened into other areas, as well. The editors list was also the main source of political commentary for members, and many joined and participated just for that reason, rationalizing that editors had to know everything since they were the center of the information flow for their groups. As with most Mensan gathering places, there conversation was dominated by a small handful of loud and opinionated members.
Some editors complained about the sheer volume of off-topic emails, so ComOfficer Tyger tried to do some moderation, which Mensans resented and rebelled against. I remember; I was a Local Group editor at the time. Tyger tried to make everyone happy by setting up a second list, Editors-talk, and directed members to use that list for the general chatter. Instead, they formed their own unofficial elist, M-Editing, on Yahoo.
(Note: Mike Eager has proclaimed on MPol that the M-Editing list was set up as “the ‘renegade’ group created when Robin did this the last time.” This of course, illustrates that even our experienced and wise members do not always recall history accurately.)
After Tyger came Tim, and during his year and a half as ComOfficer, there were three lists: Editors, Editors-Talk, and M-Editing.
I replaced Tim in late 2004. I noted that Editors-Talk wasn’t used, so I eliminated it. I listened to complaints from editors about the low signal-to-noise ratio on the Editors list, but, having been an editor during Tyger’s reign and watched how he was treated when he tried to make the list more focused, I decided I didn’t have the balls to tighten up the expectations or, gasp, make it open to only current editors.
And still, editors complained. So I tried Tyger’s compromise, but in a different way: I started a second list, Newseditors, open to current editors only and designed from the beginning to have less traffic but a higher concentration of essential information and advice for in-the-trenches editors. And this, of course, made the non-editors howl and complain that they were being excluded from a "secret, private" elist. After a while, I let go of the Editors list completely, assigning moderation to Thomas Thomas.
For three years now, there have been two lists, different in atmosphere and content. And there is always confusion about the lists: which to use for what, which list was a question asked on, resentment about the existence of two lists, etc.
The situation of the two lists was discussed at the Communications Committee meeting in July. And the same conclusions were reached that had been floated several other times: times change, and there are many other ways for Mensans who want to swap anecdotes about semi-colons, suggestions for good language books, or opinions on upcoming elections. It is time to go back to one list, one purpose, one set of officers, list all the other AML-hosted elists.
Martin Luther King, Jr. said: “Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question: is it political? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor political, nor popular -- but one must take it simply because it is right.”
This was not a sudden, autocratic decision. It was well discussed for several years by several variants of the Communications Committee, which has always included several current and former LG newsletter editors. Although my name is necessarily on the buck-stops-here signature line, there were more than a dozen Mensa members who had input into the decision: that serving the current editors with one, cohesive list is the right thing to do.
And so, the AML-hosted Editors elist is disbanded as of September 12. I’d like to extend my deep appreciation to Thomas Thomas for his years of work as facilitator and administrator of that list.
Going forward, Newseditors will comprise current LG editors, circulation managers, and pubs officers. I'm all for having experienced editors on a list to help the newbies, and really, we DO have plenty of experienced AND current editors: Think Ed Coudal. Think Gail & Gary. Think Nancy Flack. Think Jere Lull.
As for the the non-current-editor members, I heartily thank everyone for their service and encourage those members to continue to provide that valuable insight through the Online Community in the General Interest and Mensa And You areas. Likewise, current editors are encouraged to pose questions in those areas if wider opinion is sought. After all, there are language masters and Adobe wizards in Mensa who were never on the Editors’ elist; consider this a push to explore new sources of expertise within this genius organization of ours.
2 comments:
The argument that there is confusion about where something was posted is a red herring. Shutting down the Editors list will accomplish nothing, other than cutting off access to the archived messages that resided thereon. (That has been forestalled by at least 1 or 2 list members who, apparently, made sure to archive it themselves, before it was potentially lost forever.) Members of that now-defunct list will just go to the M-Editing list.
The biggest shame, though, is that incoming editors will likely not be made aware of the M-Editing yahoogroup - certainly not within the official fora. And, while there have certainly been off-topic posts and tangents, there are TONS of helpful material and CENTURIES (if not more) of editing experience to tap into - and embodied by people who DO actively post.
Decisions like this one DISCOURAGE use of the AML Online Communities, despite it being solicited. This decision is viewed with great distrust, and there is no reason why those people now "cut off" from that former list would trust that such wouldn't also be the case on the AML-hosted/"controlled" online community in question.
Also, not soliciting input from the affected members only deepens the distrust. It's all well and good for the CommComm to come to an initial recommendation. But they owe it to the members most directly affected (the members of the now-defunct list) to tell them that discussions are underway (while they are just beginning, in fact), to solicit input, to tell them what the status of the current recommendation is, and to listen to further input PRIOR to coming to what has come down in the current method as an "out of the blue" decision.
At least AMC motions have approximately a month of visibility (at minimum) before being voted on. As this was not something for the AMC to vote on (nor should it have been - I agree), there was no default visibility, however minimal.
Nice of you to imply I'm an old, experienced editor who should be consulted, but I am more a facilitator than an editor. The awards Proteus garnered under my helm were all DVM's contributors', as I hardly ever edit for content. Authors understand that their submissions stand or fall on their own efforts, so work harder.
My sole qualification is that people like writing for me, people like working with me.
I can and do edit for substance, and my authors have seemed satisfied with the results, but I've been edited by some of the past editors now excluded from official AML Editors lists. THEY are wizards! (and they point to others they consider wizards, also excluded from mentoring Mensa editors by official edict.)
I'm hardly even a grasshopper, though some of the professional editors excluded from the official lists tell me that I give them a fresh outlook on Mensa editing. (from the mouths of babes, I guess.)
Oh, and I was the one that said that M-editing was the 'renegade' list. I didn't hear about the editor-talk list when I joined the national lists about 3 years ago; absolutely no one clued me in on it. I guess none felt it relevant by then.
M-editing was, and is, the only editors list I was/am aware of that is free of AMC control, thus is the only one that could be considered the "renegade" list.
In the years I've been on those lists, M-editing became quiet as "editors" developed into a true resource. Now that's gone, M-editing has rapidly re-energized.
Newseditors has never been a particularly useful or interesting list to me. I'll remain a member, but expect I'll point all but the most trivial of questions to m-editing.
Post a Comment