Re: editorial suggestions

Thanks for your response, Alastair, and for picking up this thread.

In my experience, editors remove bottlenecks, especially when there are multiple authors. Having an editor allows the authors to focus on the substance of what is said with the understanding that the editor will focus on how it’s said. 

Also, in AGWG we regularly create bottlenecks around language—like the one I created for COGA with my AGWG feedback last week! So it’s not like we avoid bottlenecks by not having an editor.

People volunteer time to work on these documents already. Has there been a call for volunteers to edit them?

The editing process could handled in review cycles, to coordinate and manage the task so it doesn’t slow down progress.

The documents we write are so important and influence so many people in so many ways. We spend a great deal of volunteer time and effort making sure we are providing accurate guidance. It seems inconsistent that we don’t take the time to make sure that guidance is as understandable as possible for as many people as possible. 

Best,
Sarah

> On Mar 26, 2021, at 12:52 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sarah,
>  
> (Separating the thread).
>  
> Sarah wrote:
> >  On a side note, I feel bad about having taken up so much time at our last meeting and on the mailing list because of my editorial suggestions in the survey. I will resist providing that type of feedback in AGWG surveys moving forward. 
>  
> I would rather we do gather this kind of input, it is useful. Whether it is best done in a survey or via another mechanism is a good question though.
>  
> It is up to the chairs (ahem, including me) to try and manage the meeting time to focus on the substantive points that need discussion. Sometimes it is quite difficult to separate though, editorial matters!
>  
>  
> > Working group members regularly ask about engaging copyeditors and plain language experts, and often those suggestions are not taken up. Is there any way to provide suggestions outside of AGWG on the editorial aspects of the documents we review? Have we ever had a taskforce or team that focuses on copyediting our documents?
>  
> Essentially we need people to volunteer for that, and that has been the stumbling block.
>  
> More broadly though, I think that would create both:
> A never ending task for the copyeditors and,
> A bottleneck.
>  
> Perhaps a better strategy would be to do regular (short) training sessions in meetings to tackle the worst habits (that I know I have). If we work on the input rather than that output, it should scale better.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> -Alastair