Poll: Advisory Board Process Change
Bliv bruger af LibraryThing, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg
So glad to see lively discussion here and so many terrific proposals. This is fun! The Advisory Board has received two monthly reports now, and has given some light input, but its real job is going to come in November when evaluating the expanded top ten proposals.
It is possible that proposals will make it to the second round that the Advisory Board will deem "near impossible" (looking at you, "The Decameron presented in ten volumes" 👀). It seems unfair to the proposers to ask them to put work into expanding their proposals, only to be slapped with a radioactive label after the fact.
So, I'm proposing a slight process change, wherein the advisory board can suggest the voluntary withdrawal of "near impossible" proposals:
1. The Advisory Board will take a look at the top ten, and note which ones seem "near impossible".
2. The proposers, if any, will be approached and asked to voluntarily withdraw their proposals.
3. If they do so, the runners-up will join the top ten, until all of the top ten are feasible.
This way, the membership should be presented with a feasible slate in the second round. This seems better than presenting proposals which are dead on arrival and asking the membership to performatively vote them down.
Stem: Do you approve of this process change?
>3 Didici: My thoughts exactly. The more likely case, actually, is that a proposal unknowingly involves a copyright which simply can't be obtained. For example, I happen to know that one proposed author's estate is currently in a two-year negotiation with a major publishing house over the rights which has frozen literally all permissions granting.
And, to be clear, just because something is not near-impossible doesn't mean it will be a walk in the park. Anything novel-length, for example, would require pretty widespread member ordering to financially make happen.
Bliv medlem af gruppen, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg