Poll: Establishing a Waitlist

SnakConsensus Press

Bliv bruger af LibraryThing, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg

Poll: Establishing a Waitlist

dec 8, 2022, 12:50 am

Consensus Press started with 176 members; there are currently 126. We have received several dozens inquiries from non-member collectors requesting membership. Our rules state only:

Membership will be open during the month of August, after which no further members will be accepted for the first edition.

Our 2024 edition may or may not have another open invitation; this will be determined – as always! – by the vote of our members.

In the meantime, it may be smart to establish a waitlist for potential future members.

Stem: Should we establish a waitlist for potential future members?

Nuværende optælling: Ja 48, Nej 1, Ved ikke 1
As this isn't a change to the rules, but guidance for management, there isn't any quorum requirement.

dec 9, 2022, 12:30 pm

Suggest membership be limited to 175 or 200 max.

dec 9, 2022, 12:59 pm

>2 Glacierman: Agreed. Enough to cover funding if not all back, but still makes the proposal pool manageable.

dec 9, 2022, 2:23 pm

dec 9, 2022, 3:48 pm

I imagine the membership number would be set before the second edition commences, and determined by a vote of the membership (which remains after ordering). Personally, I actually think 100 committed members is better than 200 with a mix of commitment and interest.

Cento Amici del Libro could be a decent model.

dec 9, 2022, 6:23 pm

>5 grifgon: “Cento Amici del Libro could be a decent model.” Agreed!

dec 9, 2022, 11:45 pm

>5 grifgon: I too like the idea of 100 members but feel that should be the goal of the print edition. To get 100 purchasers I feel we probably need 150 - 175 members to start the cycle.

dec 10, 2022, 1:16 pm

We could stick with the initial number of 176 members as the limit for membership.

dec 10, 2022, 9:44 pm

>8 c_schelle: I like 176 being the limit. Being an odd number is interesting along with the reason for it.

dec 11, 2022, 1:28 am

>9 Esoterics: I could have sworn it was an even number.

dec 11, 2022, 1:40 am

>9 Esoterics: >10 kdweber:
I too quite like that oddly even number as a cap on membership, with an ongoing waiting list to replace any who drop out.

dec 12, 2022, 1:40 am

>10 kdweber: haha. I should’ve been more deliberate in my word choice. Unusual would be more apt, 176 is an unusual cap. Or oddly even as wcarter put it.

dec 12, 2022, 2:19 am

If we want an unusual number, I vote 129.

C = 3
O = 15
N = 14
S = 19
E = 5
N = 14
S = 19
U = 21
S = 19


dec 12, 2022, 5:07 am

173 and 179 are both prime, for the mathematically-inclined amongst us

dec 12, 2022, 7:21 am

Agreed, there is a symmetry to keeping the original influx number as the membership limit. Serendipitous, in its way.

dec 12, 2022, 10:55 am

>13 grifgon: <gasp> There’s a numerologist in our midst?!

dec 12, 2022, 4:56 pm

Well, I'll echo everyone voting for 176 as the limit, as long as that's not unreasonably high!

I assume a second edition will have slightly less drop-off at each stage than the first.

dec 13, 2022, 11:26 pm

I’ll glom on to the 176 bandwagon.

dec 14, 2022, 10:49 am

Works for me. It is, after all, within the 175-200 range I suggested!

aug 3, 2023, 10:04 am

Are we ready to establish the waiting list yet?

aug 3, 2023, 10:08 am

I vote yes.

aug 3, 2023, 10:12 am

>21 Shadekeep: Just wondering if/when we want to start same. Now, or wait until Sinuhe is published.

aug 3, 2023, 10:19 am

>22 Glacierman: I think we should establish the waiting list well before Sinuhe is published, so we don't unnecessarily delay the process of the next title. IMO we should go ahead as soon as possible.

aug 3, 2023, 10:30 am

>22 Glacierman: Sorry, my yes vote was for beginning right away. The sooner we do so the longer folks have to discover this effort and participate in the next round.

aug 3, 2023, 11:14 am

aug 3, 2023, 11:35 am

>24 Shadekeep: I also agree.

Bliv medlem af gruppen, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg