Poll: Advisory Board Process Change

Hi all,

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.

Sorry to be dense but why is The Decameron near impossible? It sounds expensive, but are there other reasons why it couldn’t happen (timescale?)

I'm a yes on the change, because I agree in principle that it would be a drag if too many proposals got through where the comments are "would take 3 years to print, you'll need to take multiple hostages to get rights, will cost $7,000." I do think I'd regard it as a bit of a failure if that's what comes out of round 1, but good to be proactive.

>2 DMulvee: A totally reasonable question, and "near" is important here. The primary issue (assuming a sufficient percentage of the membership was willing to pay the huge expense) would be finding a printer to take on the contract. They would need to drop everything else and dedicate most of their next year or two to the project. Not impossible, but near.

>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.

I voted yes, but I'd also appreciate if proposals deemed infeasible were publicly shared. That will help shape future proposal (particularly if it's "this estate will never grant rights," it would be good to know so we don't propose other books by the same author later down the line).

>1 grifgon: Strongly agree

>5 ambyrglow: Agreed, and would add the reason(s) for infeasibility are disclosed as well.

>5 ambyrglow: >6 ultrarightist: Management will share the full results of the first round of voting, which would include this information if it comes into play.

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.