On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 03:37:29PM +0100, dregin@redbrick.dcu.ie wrote:
I think a limit of 3 people is too constricting.
Well, having worked on many things, the more heads on the organising group the slower it takes ot get done. That doesn't mean that more people can't contribute,just that there's only 3 people max, acting as editors. Ideally, we'd have one editor, 1/2 sub editors who collate all the content and make the crucial decisions. Other people submitting articles etc... is cool though.
Also, would having the team made up solely of associates not leave quite a bit of Redbrick's history out of the book?
I agree - I'm not advocating that.
I think at least one open meeting should be had so that people will get to voice their opinions on the plans for the book. A small group of people are going to find it hard to cater to everyone's tastes, so I think an open meeting will at least give the team a better idea of what is wanted.
It doesn't matter whateveryone wants. What matters is getting something done, and done well. Looking for a consensus just wastes time - just look at the UN! A few smart people can figure that out, by asking people what they want. - Kevin