* Id:  EdPolicy
* Revision:  2
* State:  edited
*
* Log:
* Revision 1  1997/02/07  Aaron Rice <elemental@mcmail.com>
* Initial submitted version.
*
* Checked-out  1997/09/07  Roel van der Meulen <vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl>
*
* Revision 2  1998/08/07  Roel van der Meulen <vdmeulen@strw.leidenuniv.nl>

Aaron wrote, quite some time ago:

}  I'm not sure about all of this, and it's definitely another article (along
}  with the REVIEW one) that should go under the collective eye of all editors,
}  and probably be ripped apart and rewritten before we do anything else with
}  it.  Basically, this is just to set the ball rolling, and get some form of
}  guide to editing layed down.  (Please note it includes some of my own
}  suggestions, written as fact, though that isn't exactly what they are at the
}  moment :)  Also, it includes nothing about the second-editor thing, which
}  isn't yet clarified.)
}
}  Aaron

I have edited this article somewhat, and now submit it to be reviewed
by all editors (regardless of the "rank":).
Was anything left out?
Roel
(ps, the messages between [* ... *] are my editorial comments)

1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456

%t Editorial Policy, The Official Project Galactic Guide
%n 8R awaiting comments from all editors.
%s A Guide To The Article Editorial Procedure
%a Aaron Rice  (a.rice@ukonline.co.uk)
%d 19970207
%x Format And Style Policy, The Official Project Galactic Guide
%x FAQ, PGG
%x Review Procedure, The Official
* %x Librarian, The Official Procedures
%i Official Project Galactic Guide Editorial Procedure, The
%i Project Galactic Guide Editorial Procedure, The Official
%e
The following is a guide to the Editorial policy of the Project Galactic
Guide, including guidelines for editors, and the editorial ranking system.


The Editorial Process
====================Articles are requested by "full" editors from the "Admin Officer", who
maintains a list of submitted articles.  
[* alternative:
"Full" editors request articles from the "Distributor", who maintains a list
of submitted articles, visible on http://megadodo.com/submitted/.  He
sends back a requested number of articles from the bottom of the list, or,
with a higher priority, articles from first-time authors. *] 
Each editor should maintain some
form of list on the Megadodo page, usually http://megadodo.com/editorX/, on
which people will be able to view the progress of articles through the
editorial system.

Editing consists of a full read-through, checking for readability, balance,
grammar, punctuation, and flow.  This should be followed by a full
spell-check.  The general idea should be to keep the article as much as the
author intended, including any country-specific differences, such as the
colour/color difference.

If the article is of questionable taste, or if the editor feels
uncomfortable editing it for whatever other reason, the "Distributor"
should be notified, and the article should be posted to the newsgroup in
its current state.  Newsgroup members will be invited to make comments on
the article.  After a week or so, if the article is approved, it will be
reallocated to another editor (if possible).

Articles should be edited and sent back to the author, either for
confirmation if it is finished, or for more changes to be made.  Any
editorial changes on articles should be approved by the author before the
article is sent for review, and for clarity's sake, articles should be sent
in full back to the author for "confirmation" when they are deemed to be
ready.


Summary of Editor's Tasks
========================The following is a summary of the tasks an Editor must undertake:

          1) Editing articles for grammar, spelling, construction/flow.
          2) Sending edited articles back to author, and maintaining a log
             of the status of these articles.
          3) Receiving author approval.
          4) Sending articles to the Review Coordinator.


Ranking
======Proposed new editors may initially be listed as "waiting".  This will be
the case if enough editors are already in "training".  The following is a
rough guide to the editorial "ranking" system:

          1) Senior; a "full" editor of at least one year's standing.
          2) Junior; a "full" editor of less than one year's standing.
          3) Probational Junior; a post-trainee editor who is now working
             alone, but is still under some form of review.  Usually this
             will be an editor who has only been editing alone for up to a
             month or two.
[* I don't think nr.3 is actually necessary *]
          4) Trainee; an editor in training that has proved editorial
             ability.  These should be supervised by a junior or senior
             editor.
          5) Probational Trainee; a proposed editor who has just begun
             training, and has not yet proven editorial ability.  These
             should be supervised by a junior or senior editor.
[* Is there need to distinguish between 4 and 5? *}
          6) Ex-Editor; a former, retired, editor.


Numbers
======Numbers are assigned to editors above Trainee level, in sequential order.
Since the numbers 3,4, and 5 have been left out, they cannot be allocated
to anybody.


Contact
======Editors above and including the "rank" of "Trainee" should be contactable
at name@megadodo.com, where "name" is their first name.
%e
*EOA*

---------------

19980807  I think to keep the guide going, we should be less
critical about new editors, and get them started quickly.
The old process is too slow and scares people away. Just a thought.
Roel