Quo vadis, Consensus Press?

With the first book released into the wild, we must now consider how CP is to continue. Mistakes were made, lessons learned, and it is apparent that the current system has its flaws. So, as a member of the Press, what are your ideas for the future operation of CP? Some of the things to be considered are:

1. Do we need an advisory committee?
2. How better to structure operations?
3. How can long delays be avoided or mitigated?

We're asking all members to give this some thought. Your opinions and ideas are avidly sought. Remember, this is YOUR press, so you have a say in how we operate. How should CP operate henceforth?

Thank you, one and all!

Glacierman, for the Press

I haven’t received my copy yet (and assume I am not the only one). I think any decisions on the future should wait until all current members can see, evaluate and judge the final product from the first iteration

>2 DMulvee: +1; I would suggest delaying making suggestions / decisions until everyone has received their copies. (My copy should hopefully be arriving next week - just received shipping notification.)

I agree we should wait on all members receiving their copy to discuss in detail, but I did have a few clarifying questions:

1) To what extent did the advisory committee end up advising on Sinuhe? Or did they only give input on proposals earlier on?

2) Who (or at least, what roles) were still involved at the end of production?

I agree with waiting for all members to receive their books before making any decisions, but see no problem with starting discussion now. Several members have requested delays in shipping their copy, so it may be months until they're all in hand.

I'll share my thoughts in a bit. In the meantime, I think members should throw out any questions (like Nathan just has, or somebody did earlier asking Richard how the design of the book evolved over the process) which Richard and I may be able to answer. Richard is effectively in charge at this point, and I am the only person who has been involved behind the scenes from start to finish.

I think we do need an advisory board, although to understand the issue better I'd like to hear Richard's and Griffin's thoughts on the challenges encountered in the first iteration. Is it simply a matter of finding committed board members who'd persist and be involved in the project from the beginning to the end in exchange for a copy of the book in the making? Or do you think a book and a chance to play a role in a unique project aren't enough and, perhaps, a monetary compensation needs to be budgeted?

Of course, we were lucky that Richard had at least some book-making knowledge/experience. But I'm sure I'm not the only CP member who'd need hand-holding and professional guidance throughout the project. How to find rights holders? Best place to buy materials? Who to select as the printer for the project? Etc. Etc. Etc.

I understand Griffin did the lion's share of that type of work and needs to spread the burden next time. So it looks like we either need to build a solid advisory board, where everyone would commit to play an active role to take the project to completion, in exchange for some compensation, or perhaps we need to hire a professional to manage and execute the project. The downside to the latter I can think of is that CP could start bearing the stamp of that single person, as he might be likely to reach out and use the same binders, printers, etc.

I think that what we're talking about here is usually called something like a steering committee or working group, not an advisory committee. Personally, I prefer the term steering committee.

An advisory board in the nonprofit world usually means a group that provides guidance, connections, and credibility, but without legal or fiduciary responsibility. Generally, members of an advisory board often don't commit to hands-on work or execution.

As I understand it (I got involved somewhat later in the process), the advisory board's responsibility was to assess the viability of the various proposals, indicating which were essentially un-doable (there were several), etc. including an estimated cost.

Griffin will have much more to say about the early stages.

Finding rights holders isn't that difficult unless one is advocating for something by a deceased author; then it can get tricky. The best place to start is the Copyright Clearance Center.

Where to buy materials is a matter of familiarity with the sources and what the proposal calls for (if it has those details). As a self-taught hand bookbinder, for example, I've wandered all over the 'net in search of materials & supplies and am aware of many different places to purchase binding materials and paper, but of course the community of fine press printers/publishers/binders possess that knowledge so finding suppliers isn't that difficult.

I believe the printer & binder were selected by soliciting bids from a group of potentials. The pool of craft binders who do edition binding is rather limited. The letterpress community is a fairly small network so identifying potential printers is also not difficult, and if one knows one printer, one can tap into that network easily.

Griffin has more to say. I expect he'll be posting it soon.

I'd like to write a big summary of the "behind the scenes" for CP's first edition, as I saw it, but that will have to wait until I have time and can jog my memory. A lot happened! And its an interesting case study in how organizations can evolve organically. The short version is this: Consensus Press started with a half dozen collector-volunteers and a half dozen professional advisors; after 2+ years only one of each remain active.

>4 NathanOv:

1. The advisory board did very little. In its one active role – giving input on the proposals – the input was fairly half hearted and not definitive. The advisors gave wildly different cost estimates, for example, and I think the fact that Sinuhe ended up pretty close was just luck. The one piece of advice the advisory board did definitively give was to not pick something in copyright. Still, the members picked something in copyright.

2. Behind the scenes, it's only Richard and me left actively participating in the final stages of this project.

Here are my headline opinions:

1. Consensus Press needs a fiduciary. And, not only a fiduciary, but a guarantor, somebody willing to take on financial risk.

2. Consensus Press needs a single manager / director, who is empowered to make all decisions not related to the selecting of the project title and design.

We know these roles are necessary, because by the end of Sinuhe the press had naturally evolved to confer these roles by default to myself and Richard. I handled the tax implications of CP and stepped in to stop the project from going over budget by volunteering the slipcases (saving ~$4,000 from Alanna's quote) and shipping service. Richard handled all the logistics and day-to-day decision-making from shortly after the "Sinuhe Swap" onwards.

I think it would be unwise for Consensus Press to continue on without these roles clearly defined. Where the press broke down along the way was not where it lacked enthusiasm, or volunteers, or good advice, but where it lacked people willing to take responsibility for it. It wasn't too many cooks in the kitchen, so much as plenty of bus boys in the kitchen but no cooks. I think we could have saved an entire year on the delivery time just by having a single person from start to finish who was responsible for the press' success.

Edit: Some small edits for clarity.

I could also see a steering committee being successful. I'd suggest something like a five-person steering committee, elected by the members. The steering committee elects the press' director from among themselves. These should be compensated roles, however, especially the director.

The thornier issue is the fiduciary / guarantor.

I can volunteer to be the fiduciary again, though I'd prefer that somebody else do it.

For obvious reasons I won't volunteer as guarantor again, but I'd be happy to do it if there's a profit margin for me.

Key question:

Is anybody here willing to act as fiduciary for the press?

The problem with CP becomes when the rubber hits the road and money is actually changing hands. If we had a steering committee, are the members of that committee willing to do the work of setting up a legal entity, filing annual reports, filing tax returns, etc?

>9 grifgon: I think it’s wrong to say that all the advisory board stepped away. I never stepped away at any point - I was just only asked stuff at the start of the process. As far as I knew, I was still a part of the advisory board and it is news to me that I am considered not so. I think this may be the case for others, too. Having said that, I am unconvinced that a wide advisory board is necessary. I think enough was learned with this first publication that maybe only one or two are necessary, and only to speak on basic topics such as viability of proposals. It only takes one or two people ‘in the know’ to be able to judge whether a given proposal realistically has any legs. I will consider other points asked of the process going forward soon.

>12 grifgon: I might be able to take on the role of fiduciary, with some additional understanding of the parameters. For example, would there be an upper cap on outlays, after which the project would be abandoned rather than incur further costs?

>13 ChestnutPress: You are the one remaining "professional advisor" that I meant, Mark! I don't think any of the others have given any input in over two years, whereas you've been active behind the scenes fairly regularly.

Poor writing on my part, because "stepped away" makes it sounds like the other advisors actively resigned or something. Rather, they did not involve themselves after the input on proposals, nor was anything asked of them.

My impression is the same as yours: a wide advisory board is not necessary.

>14 Shadekeep: Sounds to me like a question only the fiduciary could answer!

>9 grifgon: the organizational literature strongly agrees with this assessment, btw. The biggest predictors of nonprofit and volunteer organization failure are weak leadership and poorly defined roles.

The following are full books, so I don't expect anyone to really dig into them, but if anyone is curious about the evidence:

Cornforth, C. (2003). The governance of public and non-profit organizations: What do boards do?

Pearce, J. L. (1993). Volunteers: The organizational behavior of unpaid workers.

>16 grifgon: I think it would have to be answered by, well, consensus. Not much use in a fiduciary who says "$5 over budget is the breakpoint", for example. At the same time, it would have to be mutually agreed what the cutoff is, as you don't want to be on the hook for throwing good money after bad just because some members feel that the amount committed so far justifies any attempt at completion. I'm fine with the fiduciary having a final say as to what they are willing to commit to (and the press accepting or declining), but feel it's better to have a discussion first as to what people feel is a proper threshold.

>15 grifgon: Ah I see. Glad I still count!!

>19 ChestnutPress: You count for double!

>17 abysswalker: Very interesting! A broken clock is right twice a day! ; - D

>18 Shadekeep: Totally agree that there's room for member input on the financial questions. And I imagine the membership will give tons of latitude to whoever volunteers to be the press' fiduciary. I think the key question is, are you willing to hold the press' money and handle the attending paperwork?

>17 abysswalker: Curious what you think about a steering committee of, say, five (who collectively serve as manager and fiduciary) versus a single person serving as manager and a single person serving as fiduciary.

>20 grifgon: Ah, reading back, I had the roles reversed. I was thinking more of being what you term the guarantor, rather than the fiduciary. I have no head for money and less for fiscal paperwork, so for the good of all involved it's better if someone else takes that particular role. Or as you later suggested, having the group handle it together (less of a single-point-of-failure that way).

Thinking on it, there seem to be three clear options, all of which seem like a positive improvement. Curious to take a quick straw poll.

Option A: Direct Democracy

– Members elect and pay dues directly to a manager, who runs the day-to-day.
– After proposals are elected, bids are solicited from makers. The members elect a bid, and then pay the maker(s) directly, bypassing the need for any sort of fiduciary.

(I suggested something like this earlier this year. I think it's a fun idea! It would involve members making multiple direct payments to multiple people, however, and I don't know how many makers would give bids.)

Option B: Representative Democracy

– All who bought Sinuhe continue as members for CP2.
– The membership elects, say, five members to form a Steering Committee.
– The Steering Committee collectively acts as fiduciary and manager.
– Perhaps the Steering Committee is paid from dues collected upfront?

Option C: Monarchy

– I can continue as the fiduciary and guarantor of Consensus Press, on the condition that there's some modest profit margin worked into the price of the book. We could make that profit margin explicit.
– I'd hire Richard to serve as press manager and pay him directly from this profit margin.
– The members might elect a Steering Committee to assist and advice Richard.

To make my own position clear:

– Option A is my favorite, though I'm not sure whether we'd get many bids... I'd bid, though, depending on the proposal!

– Option C is basically where we landed at the end of Sinuhe. Richard does a great job with the management of the press, and I took the financial hit of the press going over-budget. I can't speak for Richard, but I am willing to continue where we're at for at least the second book. However, if I'm possibly taking a loss I at least need the possibility of some profit, and Richard must be paid.

– I'm honestly a bit skeptical of Option B because I don't think any members will volunteer for a Steering Committee where fiduciary responsibility is part of the deal. If anybody here says "I'll hold the money for CP and do the tax filings, etc!" then I'm proven wrong. I myself won't volunteer for the Steering Committee, because I worry that, like with CP1, my volunteering will creep into de facto taking responsibility.

I think Option A might work with a slight tweak - instead of paying dues to the manager, every member kicks in an initial amount to the kitty. This serves two purposes - it's padding if the project goes overbudget, and it's payment to the manager at the end of it all. Might serve as extra incentive for the manager to keep things on track, since it means a larger kitty for them at the end.

Option C seems the crowd favorite, though it does rather minimise the consensual aspect of it all.

For myself, I'm of the opinion that the simplest setup is likely the best. The fewer chiefs, the better. Consequently, I favor Griffin's Option C above, and not just because it involves me, but because I truly think that would be the best option as it would allow for a smoother operation with fewer delays.

I have rather enjoyed the role in which I unexpectedly found myself and would not object to continuing in that role.

If you decide that is the course you want CP to follow, you should know something about my qualifications.

Fiduciary experience.
I was a member of and CFO for a small LLC and am presently the Finance Officer for American Legion Post 72 in Columbia Falls, MT.

In addition, I handled all the bookkeeping/tax duties for our own business entities over the years, both as sole proprietorships and as multiple-member LLCs.

Tax reporting is not a problem, as I spent 26 years as an independent professional tax preparer and one year as a Tax Analyst in the local H & R Block office of which my late wife was the manager. Our tax prep business had over 200 satisfied clients when we finally tossed in the towel. Also, I taught many of our clients to keep proper records and keep accurate books (we recommended Quickbooks) and was actually the bookkeeper for one of our clients.
=====

To continue on in my current role at CP plus adding financial responsibilities would require I receive some salary for my services. As a reminder, Fiduciaries are persons or organizations who act on behalf of others and are required to put clients’ interests ahead of their own. (source). That is a responsibility I take very seriously.

So much went on behind the scenes! What went on before I got involved is something that Griffin can tell, but afterwards, I did in fact act as an impromptu project manager. And loved it!

Looking forward to the future of Consensus Press, regardless of the structure ultimately approved by you, the members.

>26 grifgon: We could do option D and make it an elective absolute monarchy with current members as the voting base and have a conclave to elect our leader ;-)

If we were in Germany I would suggest we found a "eingetragener Verein" (registered association), but I don't think that's a viable option with such an international membership.

I think the problem with any election for this project is that we hardly know each other and there is no way to hold anyone accountable. I wouldn't know who to vote for. There is a lot of trust required in this project. If I hadn't known some of the advisory board beforehand I would have been more cautionary with handing over money to people I don't know. Griffin is well known in our community and I trust him to continue with this project. With regards to the consensual aspect >27 Shadekeep: raises for me it's not a big problem. I think we would continue with a similar proposal, selection and design steps and gather input of the participants. Having someone trusted with final say could make some steps easier. That said I have not yet received the book and stayed away from the discussion and pictures in the Fine Press Forum. I might change my mind after receiving the book, but I trust that I will like it.

>28 Glacierman: I don't know how much work went into the whole process for Griffin and you. I'm in favour of you two getting paid. I think most of the cost will result from the choices the members make regarding the book anyways (e.g full leather, handset metal type etc.) and not the overhead of managing the project. But if we want to vote on the structure and Griffin and Richard I think the rough cost for their services should be known.

One thing that is not clear to me, and apologies for being dense. When we talk about things like fiduciary and paying taxes, are we assuming this all happens in the US, i.e., the person needs to be based there, we pay taxes to the US tax office etc? Is there a world in which we'd consider setting this up elsewhere? Not that I'm suggesting this, but just trying to understand what are the implicit assumptions baked into this discussion.

Provided that a press manager will follow the original design and ideas of the wining proposal and will work closely with the individual who submitted the wining proposal, while getting consensus from the members on key decisions, Option C sounds like the most practical and viable approach. Option A sounds interesting; however, I would be concerned with members making multiple payments to various parties at different times. Getting enough people to participate in Option B could also be challenging... and could delay the overall process with multiple people making key decisions.

Regardless of the Option selected, I agree that the press manager and the person responsible for fiduciary duties should be reasonably compensated for their work.

With respect to an advisory function, I think there needs to be one or more expert to guide the members during the title selection process (at the very least). Prior to the next round of proposals, there should be a consensus on how much members are willing to pay for the next title. Once a reasonable price range is determined, the advisor(s) can provide general guidance as to what would be reasonable given our budget. For example, i) number of pages or words; ii) currently under copyrights or out of copyrights; iii) type of paper; iv) method of printing; v) would it be possible to have an illustration; vi) type of endpapers; vii) materials for binding and type of binding; viii) slipcase; ix) etc.

I believe the aforementioned steps will go a long way in improving the overall feasibility of proposals during the first round.

>31 filox: Inasmuch as the majority of CP members came from the US (35 or approx. 50%), it would make sense to assume a US base for CP. If we set it up properly, any taxes that might be due would be paid by CP directly.

>32 vadim_ca: Provided that a press manager will follow the original design and ideas of the wining proposal and will work closely with the individual who submitted the wining proposal, while getting consensus from the members on key decisions,

The manager would indeed follow the design ideas of the winner insofar as is practical and the proposer would, of course, be consulted regarding changes as was done with Sinuhe. Some changes due to unexpected problems might well be necessary and require an immediate decision; the manager should have the authority to make such decisions w/o consultation.

Regarding copyrights, let me go on record as being in favor of avoiding works in copyright if at all possible. Permissions can take quite a while to obtain (if at all) and add to production costs, as rights are not free.

>28 Glacierman: You have my vote! :)

>34 Glacierman: Sounds very reasonable to me. Agree that the manger should have authority to make certain decisions w/o consultation - especially decisions that could delay the overall process otherwise. With respect to copyright, my next proposal will most certainly not be something under copyright - no need to delay or complicate the process.

>21 grifgon: the literature suggests such a setup would be prone to diffusion of responsibility.

I'm neither a lawyer nor an accountant, but I suspect a fiduciary must be some sort of financial entity, so I'm not sure that's compatible with an ad hoc committee. Maybe someone with more knowledge in this area could weigh in regarding the legalities.

>23 grifgon: I think this option would be a logistical nightmare. We'd need another role just to bother people about the individual tasks!

>34 Glacierman: I will second the copyright stance made here. I think that unless a copyright permission is already given for a proposed piece then it’s a no go due to the sometimes extremely lengthy process of getting permission. And from an economic point of view, unless said copyright is given free of charge (or a reasonably small amount that the membership don’t mind paying extra for to cover it) then it should also not be considered. Having lengthy waits and extra costs from the get go really shouldn’t even be vaguely considered as a viable way forward.

>34 Glacierman: re: avoiding copyrights, assuming US rules, that cuts out everything post ~1930 other than the odd CC or copyleft pub. I would strongly oppose this due to how it would limit possibilities. Yes, it causes waits and costs money, but then that's everything in publishing.

Wouldn't it even have prevented Consensus Press from publishing Sinuhe? I believe the translation is recent and in copyright, no?

As far as the copyright issue is concerned, I think the best approach is to:

A. Encourage people to make public domain proposals or, if not, to inquire about the feasibility of permission prior to making the proposal.

B. Note any copyright challenges with the proposal when members vote.

I don't think banning copyrighted material from proposals is a good idea. Sinuhe, for example, contained copyrighted material, but it was a copyright which any publisher could tell you would take ten minutes to clear. All the Ishiguro proposals on the other hand...

Frankly, I think the beauty of Consensus Press is that it can be self-correcting. If you don't think the added wait and cost of copyrighted material is worth it, then vote against a proposal. The key is in making sure that those challenges are known. If they weren't known before, they certainly are now.

>36 abysswalker: To re-iterate: Fiduciaries are persons or organizations who act on behalf of others and are required to put clients’ interests ahead of their own.

Financial responsibilities are often, but not necessarily, included in the duties of a fiduciary.

>39 abysswalker: Well, I did say "if at all possible." I agree with Griffin (40 above) that if one wishes to propose a work in copyright, they should do some preliminary research as to feasibility. The place to start is the Copyright Clearance Center.

I agree with much of what's been said. I do wonder a bit about jurisdiction of incorporation, in particular since getting things across the border into the US seems to be unpredictable and potentially costly these days. Ought the press at large have to (e.g.) eat a big and unforeseeable tariff bill because something has sprung into place overnight, as I understand nearly happened this time? The people are where the people are, in the end, but I'm a bit worried that the US is a bad place to be dealing with more than we have to, from the perspective of an international member.

I would like to put a rather contentious view.
I have not yet received my copy of Sinhue, so cannot comment on the quality.
Considering the significant number of fine press publishers in the market, including relatively new ones like Lyra, Arete, Conversation Tree etc., is there really a need for Consensus Press to continue?
It has been an interesting experiment, but very time consuming, stressful and prolonged for those directly involved, and because of logistics, only those in USA and possibly Canada can really be involved in the production of the book.
Should we just say that we have proved a point, and then move on with purchasing splendid books from existing fine press publishers?
If Consensus Press continues, I certainly want to be involved to the extent of receiving any publications, but because of geography, it is quite impossible for me to be involved in any other way.

>44 wcarter: It's a great question!

What's the press' raison d'être? I see it as twofold:

1. To demonstrate that consensus-driven editorial and design decision-making can produce wonderful books.

2. To fill gaps in the current fine press market.

In my mind, the first C.P. edition was a success on both fronts. I can't think of another press that would have published Sinuhe. Furthermore, find me another near-fully handmade book (handmade paper, manual printing, hand-binding) of this size, which includes brand new editorial content by a world-class scholar on a work of world literature, at this price point. I think it's a pretty rousing accomplishment.

>44 wcarter: Your question is certainly an important one!

Looking back on this first edition, the process did not feel particularly consensus driven, either in editorial or design. The design seemed mostly set in the original proposal, and after that most decisions stayed with the proposer. The only things that came to the group were whether to include a chemise and which signatures to add. Polls are a great way to make decisions, but in this case there were just too few of them.

I would like to see more choices actually put to the membership. Otherwise it ends up feeling a lot like buying into a pre-planned edition from a small press rather than shaping something together. I know that involving the group more could feel like a lot of work and might slow things down a bit, but I do not think it would really delay production in the bigger picture.

One challenge with this approach is that production costs would not be fully clear until after all editorial and design decisions had been made. It would be useful if each poll could include cost information for the options so members understood the tradeoffs. Of course, putting those estimates together could be labor intensive, but that might be an appropriate role for the advisory board, ideally with compensation for the effort.

A more consensus driven process might look like this:
1. Propose a list of works
2. Take a membership poll to pick one
3. Run a series of short polls (around 48 hours each) on the important editorial and design choices, either one after another or at the same time if they do not overlap
4. Finalize the estimated cost of production once the key decisions are made
5. Collect commitments and payments from the membership based on those costs

That way, the edition would feel like it was truly created by consensus, rather than simply selecting and funding a pre-defined proposal.

>47 jdanielpowell: I guess this a question of whether an edition's design should be based on the proposer's ideas or shaped by the membership. But if you want it to be shaped by the membership, what's the point of the design proposal in the first place? I think we're good as we are. Each proposer is free to be as precise or vague as they want to be, and the following involvement of the membership will depend on that.

In our case Richard had a pretty clear vision for his proposal, and his design was approved by the advisory board and - importantly - voted for by the membership. We got involved at the points our involvement was needed - vote on the paper upgrade, CP logo selection, signatures, transportation choices, etc.

" 2. Take a membership poll to pick one
3. Run a series of short polls (around 48 hours each) on the important editorial and design choices"

So after voting for and selecting Richard's proposal we would have taken a series of votes to re-confirm individually his different design decisions from his winning proposal? I think it was done right. Which doesn't mean that more membership involvement won't ever happen in the future: a winning proposal might be vague on some points and require more decisions from the membership. Although, I have to add that a certain degree of freedom should be left to the hired professional book designer as well.

>45 grifgon: "To fill gaps in the current fine press market"

And this is precisely why I think CP should continue, to publish the neglected classics and the meritorious but obscure works of various and sundry genres.

>25 grifgon: Is the monarchy hereditary, meaning you inherit it from the first CP project? And how is your eventual successor as the monarch selected, elected, or acclaimed?

>40 grifgon: When looking for easily doable in-copyright works, are there any approximate guidelines?
For example:
- translated works published by University presses, such as our Sinuhe (is it generally true?)
- I heard that rights of the works owned by the estates of various British authors that are represented by the Society of Authors are generally easy to obtain (please correct me if that might not be the case)

>49 ultrarightist: Hear, hear!
I don't think Lyra's Books et al. are an alternative. I'm not looking for the umpteenth edition of Sherlock Holmes, Poe, Dorian Gray, A Christmas Carol, etc. Or any edition of Coelho, perish the thought :)
I do think we need to emphasize that we should aim to publish books that aren't available in nice editions yet. That makes the project particularly interesting for me, and such focus would keep me committed even if a winner turns out to be a book I didn't vote for.

Regarding the structure that CP shall have, at least in my experience based on some nonprofit organizations I belong, I think the best is the one that the American School Foundation has: all the members belong to the Foundation and they periodically choose the Board (it could be between 5 and 9 members). Board members are the ones who decide all the strategic issues and are advised by several Steering Committees that are integrated by experts in the specific topic of each committee and presided by one of the Board members. And finally, there is a General Manager who runs day to day activities, based in the strategy that the Board designed and supervised by the Board. So, it become a representative democracy - all the membership choose the Board members to make the decision in their name; the Board decide based on technical advises of the Steering Committees and transmit those decisions to the general manager, who was hired by the Board and who executes the decision and informs the Board about the results. And finally, the Board informs periodically the members of the Foundation about what is happening. In the CP case, all the members can choose the Board members. The Board can create specific committees, base on relevant topics - design, production, finance/budget, logistics, legal, etc. - and invite members of the CP, as well as some external experts, to be part of them and provide the advice. And once the Board will have the advice of the Committees, and the majority of the Board members have decided on something, they will instruct and supervise the general Manager to execute those decisions.

I've not received the book yet, but had two initial thoughts I wanted to raise:

Transparency -
I don't think it's going to be efficient (or enjoyable) to vote on absolutely everything. However I think increased transparency of what decisions are being made (and for what reason) would be really interesting. For me, this is a learning opportunity to see how a fine press book is put together (warts and all).

Number of books -
It may sound naive or overly ambitious, but I think we should pick two books next time (with the condition being that at least one of them is out of copyright or copyright is immediately available). Assuming we settle on an improved governance structure I think having more going on might help maintain interest and enthusiasm generally. It also avoids us having all eggs in one basket.

>54 EdmundRodriguez: Agree with the first point. Although I'd like to add that communication has been pretty good. It might not feel that way because of the project stretching over a long period of time. But I think Richard, Griffin, Reed, and Mark did a good job communicating all major changes, hurdles, and project updates.

I understand the sentiment, but I'm afraid that having two books in the works concurrently increases financial risk and would require an investment some members might not be willing to make. Also, it might put too much load on our manager/director/steering committee. CP is still in its infancy stage. Baby steps.

A lot of great points on all sides so far, but in the main I concur with @grifgon and @Glacierman here. I think there is definite value in CP continuing and I personally think it should champion works that no other press is likely to touch, but which truly deserve the attention (as @ultrarightist has pointed out).

If we do proceed with the consolidated structure, I do believe that Richard should be paid for his time and his especially apt skillset. Griffin as well should see a profit or other form of remuneration from his time, dedication, and craft.

Regarding copyright, it doesn't have to be a hard exclusionary rule but people should certainly know what they are getting into. If I have any opposition to suggesting copywritten works, it mostly lies in requesters offering up titles which are merely current or popular, and therefore likely to be tackled by other presses as well. Like @elladan0891, I am not supporting CP to get yet another edition of some title that is already threadbare and shiny from its tour around half a dozen other presses.

I could imagine taking on two projects at once under special circumstances. Say, the members vote on the final proposals and two are the runaway favorites, and both projects are on the slimmer size. In that circumstance, it might make sense to propose to members that both projects be undertaken.

The degree of members input is a really interesting topic. As jdanielpowell noted, there wasn't a lot of member input on the nitty-gritty of Sinuhe, though as elladan0891 noted, the proposal was fairly fleshed out and the members did vote to adopt it. Any member could have proposed a change to the adopted proposal, too. I suspect that a smaller, more committed group (which I suspect is where we are landing) might feel more empowered to get involved. One thing which I could see being very interesting is, after a proposal is adopted, a two week period for proposed changes to the proposal and/or members voting on details where the proposal does not specify. For example, if a winning proposal does not specify a paper, it would be easy to put that choice before the members. Or, if members feel that the paper choice is poor, they might vote to make a change.

1. Proposals
2. Round one voting (up or down)
3. Top ten proposals honed by proposers
4. Round two voting (ranked choice)
5. Discussion and changes to the elected proposal

Given two weeks each, we have a solid proposal in less than a season.

>57 A.Nobody: I have also been wondering about whether some sort of upfront commitment is needed. Though, it seems like the purchase of the previous CP edition is an upfront commitment.

So I wonder about something like this for maintaining the membership:

1. Those who purchased the previous title are members at no upfront cost.

2. Those who didn't purchase the previous title (new members) can join by placing a substantial downpayment on the upcoming title. $200?

I also wonder...

With the first CP edition, making a proposal and voting were mandatory. Do they need to be?

>59 grifgon: Yes, this makes sense. I could also support past members paying a smaller up-front fee and new members paying a larger fee. And maybe, those who have been members in good standing for a certain period (say 3-5 projects) wouldn't have to pay any up-front fee. I'm still wary of people supporting a project or 2 but then doing the vanishing act.

>58 grifgon: That seems like a strong compromise. It allows proposals to present a complete vision, which helps members picture the edition, while still ensuring that the process is guided by consensus. The final edition should feel like something created by the membership rather than simply adopted and funded. In contrast, Sinuhe felt more like the realization of Glacierman’s proposal than a work collectively shaped by the group.

I'm going to step away from the computer for a week or so and then circle back! I think this discussion is really starting to hone in on some major improvements.

Richard has alerted all members that discussion is ongoing here about the future of CP.

I think we should keep this discussion going until all members have received their copies, and then use this discussion and straw polls to draft bylaws for the press. We can bring the proposed bylaws to the whole membership for adoption vote.

In the meantime, if anybody has a specific change or idea they'd like to see adopted, put up a straw poll! (You can learn how to post a poll about halfway down this post: https://www.librarything.com/topic/177029)

I'm curious, if things settle on Griffin as guarantor with Richard as manager, how often would we revisit / reassess the roles and press structure?

Poll key
Yes = As long as they would like to remain in the roles
No = For the next edition only, then revisit
Undecided = For a different period of some years (e.g 3 or 5, then revisit)

One last comment before I hold off for a while to let the membership have their say unless someone asks a question of me personally:
 Sinuhe ended up being a highly modified realization of my project. Several changes were voted on by membership. Although I am content with the results, it is definitely not the book I originally envisioned.

Query as the devil's advocate: Would it not be a waste of a member's time to craft a detailed proposal only to have it tweaked, twisted and modified by others? Let us not forget that "a camel is a horse designed by a committee."

>66 NathanOv: I think that should be two separate questions:

I think we should adopt bylaws in perpetuity. We can't rebuild the press from scratch every edition. However, those bylaws should obviously include the ability of the members to make changes as we go.

As far as personnel goes, the bylaws should include provisions for election, removal, resignation, etc. I think the best thing to do is write a bylaws without Richard and I in mind. We can slot into the roles as written, but if Consensus Press is going to have any long-term viability those roles obviously need to written in such a way that trust and success isn't simply bound up with Richard and me personally.

So, I think the more pertinent questions are:

How is the guarantor elected?
Does the guarantor serve in perpetuity unless they are removed or resign, or is there a set term?
How is the director elected?
Does the director serve in perpetuity unless they are removed or resign, or is there a set term?

My suggestion would be that the guarantor is elected at the outset of each edition and appoints the director.

>67 Glacierman: Funnily enough, I think our edition of Sinuhe is a great counter argument to the "camel is a horse ..." analogy. I think that ultimately decisions left to membership were done on a very reserved and discretionary basis, and yielded an excellent final publication.

Of course, the initial proposal would've undoubtedly been excellent as written, but I think the "tweaks" and "twists" this first time around were perfectly within reason and without any negative consequence.

EDIT: >68 grifgon: that seems fair! I don't know that I would trust each and every guarantor to appoint the director, so it should at least require member confirmation, but of course the guarantor would need to re-up their commitment each go around anyway and be on board with the other decisions made by membership.

>69 NathanOv: Oh, overall, to be sure I am content with the final results, but my 'devil's advocate' question was made with others in mind, not me. Things worked out OK in the end for Sinhue even if it is not what I had in mind initially. I am very much tickled with the choice of paper, and the membership's decision to dump the chemise in favor of it was one with which I heartily concurred. It was a trade-off that served but to improve the product.

>67 Glacierman: Would it not be a waste of a member's time to craft a detailed proposal only to have it tweaked, twisted and modified by others?

Absolutely. I'm categorically against placing doubt on and having the members to re-confirm by another vote every individual element of a winning proposal that was just voted for. However, as I mentioned above and >58 grifgon: suggested, I have no issue with voting specifically for elements that the winning proposal does not specify. That's what this membership is for.

Tweaks and twists are completely fine too if they come organically, as they did with Sinuhe. But having to reconfirm every detail of a winning proposal right after selecting the said proposal? I don't think it's the way to go, and it is unfair to proposers.

>71 elladan0891: Very much agreed

>71 elladan0891: Couldn’t agree more. Otherwise, what would be the point of crafting a detailed proposal.

>71 elladan0891: Agree

>67 Glacierman: I like the idea that part of what we are voting on is the specificity of the proposal.

I can foresee more design elements of the form "color chosen by the membership" (etc).

If members want more involvement, they will vote for it.

Personally, I am satisfied with where the design authority landed, and I can imagine some members might not be interested in researching the finer points and archival properties of various materials choice regularly, for example. But might want to read about others doing so!

>71 elladan0891: Wholeheartedly agree!

>59 grifgon:

24 of 24 support the proposal.

I am a new member. Why discourage new members?

I get what irked A.Nobody, but I am not sure why new members who were not involved last time around should be assumed to be likely to drop out. Innocent of all charges your honor! By all means impose a substantial additional downpayment on those who signed up last time but dropped out and want in again. Supportive of down payments but think all should contribute.

Will the $200 downpayment be used to pay key personnel and not be recoverable if the book is never produced thereby placing much more financial risk on the new member than the existing member?

If you do choose to proceed with this two tier member model, will there be a guarantee that no further votes will be proposed that disadvantage the new member? Higher book prices, non-voting members etc.

>77 Pendrainllwyn: I am a new member

What do you mean, exactly? There is no such thing as new members yet. If you're not a current member, you're not a member. We don't have a process for admitting new members yet. Also, if you're not a member, how do you have access to this forum?
@consensuspress @Glacierman can we please remove the non-member from the group?

Btw, the suggested proposal isn't a two-tier model, it's a price to pay to become a member. There are no proposals to treat members differently, and insinuating that we'd be charging new members higher prices is ridiculous.

I am someone who requested and was given access to the Consensus Press discussion group. At the top of the page it says "A discussion group for members of Consensus Press." and on the top right it says in bold "You are a member of this group". I thought therefore that I had become a member. How else should I interpret that?

Given that I didn't buy the first book I considered myself a new member.

Your aggressive message demanding my ejection and the suggestion that as a new member I should pay a $200 prepayment certainly makes me feel like new members are treated differently.

Perhaps we should take a moment to cool down the discussion here.

I think the proposal of a payment by new members is not a punitive decision, but simply one of equitability. The existing members who stuck with the first round already paid into the scheme once and took the financial risk of a project which theoretically might never have been completed. With that experience the process should be much smoother the next time. In light of all that, I don't find it untoward that newcomers make a similar investment in the process, especially as it's even less risky for them as it was for the original members. Plus, by making a token investment, new members show they are as committed as original members. Given the number who dropped in the first round, it makes sense to avoid the same level of upheaval a second time.

>79 Pendrainllwyn: This pinned post is pretty clear about membership requirements:
https://www.librarything.com/topic/366182

I am someone who requested and was given access to the Consensus Press discussion group. At the top of the page it says "A discussion group for members of Consensus Press." and on the top right it says in bold "You are a member of this group". I thought therefore that I had become a member. How else should I interpret that?

That you were given access to this group by mistake, clearly.

@consensuspress - I'm sure we're not just giving access to any random person who asks for it, but apparently mistakes happen. No problem. But let's correct this one. Also, not urgent by any means, but at some point we should clean up access to this group. As half of the original membership bailed out, I'm sure we have several LT users here who are not members anymore. And since we run multiple temperature check polls here, it's probably not a good idea having non-members potentially participating in these polls.

>81 elladan0891: In defense of Pendrainllwyn, he wasn't a "random person" asking for access. He expressed a sincere desire to become a full, participating member of CP and I gave him access to the forum on that basis.

Pendrainllwyn acted in good faith based on my granting him membership in the forum and posted accordingly. Ashes are to be heaped upon my head, therefore, and not his.
.
The error is mine. Mea maxima culpa! I have contacted him and explained the situation and he has, for now, been removed from forum membership. Any future input he may have as an eager member-to-be will be relayed through me. A rather clunky, but necessary process for, as was pointed out, posting privileges in this forum is limited to existing members, id est, those who purchased a copy of Sinuhe.

>81 elladan0891: A list clean up is certainly in order. I'll do that as soon as possible. Thanks for the reminder.

>82 consensuspress: Thank you!

>79 Pendrainllwyn: Sorry for the confusion. As you understand, we're run by volunteers who try and mean the best. Sometimes mistakes and confusion are inevitable. And please don't take it personally. I'm happy there are people interested to join, and I'd be happy to welcome new members, including yourself. It's just we haven't figured out a process for adding new members. And I hope you understand that as this group was created specifically and exclusively for the members of the Press, I simply want to make sure that only members are able to participate in discussions and polls relevant to the workings of the Press. You're welcome to keep an eye on the forum. And you're welcome to join when we work out a process for new members joining if you'd be interested.

>82 consensuspress: I can understand the intention of yourself and Pendrainllwyn but if Librarything polls are taken as a binding view of the membership it really needs to be restricted to just members, and new members should only be admitted at one period after the conclusion of one book and before the proposals for the next book are submitted.

This isn’t meant as anything against Pendrainllwyn but more as rule in the future, and I hope that we see them as a member soon

>85 DMulvee: Of course. That is why I removed Mr. P from the forum. The precise timing/method of soliciting new members is still open for discussion.

Here's a fly in the ointment.

Copied from a post in the Fine Press forum:

15 RRCBS Today, 2:04 pm
Posting here to share an fyi as a person with interest but not actually looking to be a member of CP: based on my testing, anyone can answer the polls as long as they have an LT account - they don’t need to be a group member.

>87 consensuspress: I'd imagine RRCBS is just about the only non-member to have bothered voting. Seems unlikely this would skew anything at this point, especially since it's all just straw polls to be codified later.

>87 consensuspress: polls should probably go through proper survey software. Google forms is probably good enough and free.

>88 NathanOv: Probably. But now that the whole Fine Press forum knows... :)

I wouldn't worry about it, either. Not sure if anybody who isn't a member of Consensus Press is following the discussion intently enough to vote in our straw polls, though I suppose the internet always has some trolls under the floorboards who could make a mess. Fully half of our members have no presence on this discussion forum, so it's not the be-all-end-all. Ultimately, the results on ballots sent to all members are what matters. Furthermore, if we start to see a huge divergence between straw poll results and ballot results, we can evaluate and discuss whether straw polls are useful. To my knowledge, every ballot CP has ever held has confirmed the straw poll consensus (!) on this forum.

This is a book club not the United Nations, after all.

I've been voting in the Security Council for years and nobody has noticed!

>47 jdanielpowell: Some proposals were very specific and if voted the winner, its original idea shouldn't be altered more than necessary. Of course, not all members have the vision or expertise to be as specific as the original volume.

I would suggest, however, that the membership did have one very impactful decision from the start--it dropped the actual winner in fear of a long process and switched the volume even though in hindsight it was a long process. Who know how much influence polls would have had if we had never switched projects in the first place?

>85 DMulvee: >83 consensuspress: >81 elladan0891: At the risk of outing myself, I joined the forum at the very beginning, submitted a proposal/voted, but ultimately elected not to purchase the book. But I’ve still been following along here the whole time, and I acted as one of the proofreaders of the text even after I’d dropped out of the purchasing group. So while I certainly think it’s reasonable that I shouldn’t get to vote, I don’t know that kicking people out who may yet contribute is the way to go - but I’ll defer to the Consensus (of the) Press.

Maybe this is something that we can resolve in the new bylaws...

Kindly request that non-members who lurk among us not vote, ha ha ha.

Edit: Non-members can vote undecided! ;-D

A few other questions that occur a bylaws are considered, mostly around whether facets of CP1 should carry over...

The proposal election process for CP1 worked as follows:

1. Members made proposals of up to 100 words.
2. Members have each proposal an "up or down" vote.
3. The ten proposals with the highest approval rate were expanded to up to 1,000 words.
4. The members elected a proposal from among the top ten using ranked choice.

There are two changes to this process that have been discussed. Please give your input:

Keeping in mind that this very slightly increases the price of the book for everybody else.

Keeping in mind that this very slightly increases the price of the book for everybody else.

The implication of a "No" vote is that the press manager might admit a new member mid-process if they fulfill the requirements of admission.

My commentary on each question:

>100 grifgon: With the understanding that the degree of 'honing' is dependent on how detailed the proposal is.

>102 grifgon: That is a common practice.

>104 grifgon: Discouraged, but not banned.

>106 grifgon: Changing every time looses the accumulated body of knowledge of how things work.

>107 grifgon: Both of these can be had for free.

>59 grifgon: I'm not a fan of a substantial non-refundable downpayment. If it's not refundable I would not be willing to pay more than 20-50 USD. If I'm not at all interested in the book I don't want to lose a significant amount of money in this venture. I liked that the first two rounds of voting of CP1 were only "paid" in time.

>102 grifgon: I don't know how this is handled by commercial presses, but as the craftspeople are paid for their work I would rather offer the opportunity to buy a copy at the same price every member pays for the resulting book.

Addenda:

>102 grifgon: It's my understanding that many presses do this, normally in the form of unnumbered or hors d'commerce copies. I think it's a nice tradition to maintain.

>105 grifgon: After first discussing if there's any way to bring it back to the realm of the practical.

>107 grifgon: Happy to handle this if desired, I have an ISP that hosts my several sites and I also host other sites for friends.

>101 grifgon: Should the proposer of the elected proposal receive the #1 copy of the edition for free? Keeping in mind that this very slightly increases the price of the book for everybody else.

Isn't it already in place? I thought the proposer does get a free copy. Wasn't it the case for Sinuhe?

Let's use Sinuhe as a theoretical. If we had produced 20 extra copies for sale at $400 each for non-members, we might have been able to reduce the price to members by ~$40 each or so.

A "no" vote implies that the press should ONLY produce a sufficient number of copies for its members.

>112 grifgon: Definitely a higher price, perhaps significantly so.

>112 grifgon: What happens if there aren't many/any buyers of the extra copies? Would members wind up paying more to make those extra books?

>113 Shadekeep: This possibility also allows for Consensus Press to continue even if the numbers on a particular elected proposal don't work out, if the guarantor is willing to take a short term loss with the prospect of selling further copies down the line.

Realistically, every Consensus Press book needs to sell 100 copies at a reasonable price to be solvent. If that's not possible, then the book needs to be sold to fewer people at an UNreasonable price. By allowing for an overage, it's possible to shift that off the membership and on to future collectors who – down the line – may want to order the book despite the high price.

>114 A.Nobody: It depends on the system which the members adopt, but judging by the straw polls it looks like the the most popular option is to have a guarantor. That's likely to be me for the next edition, so let me give a real example of what it might look like:

Let's say the members elect a proposal for The Declaration of Independence, printed on handmade paper and hardbound in a slipcase. (A very similar project, production-wise, as Sinuhe.) If there are 80 members, I know I can get 80 copies made at roughly $300 each. So I'll price it at $360 to work in some profit with which to pay the manager and make the risk I take on worthwhile.

But if I plan 100 copies for 80 members, I could make the member price $300 and sell the 20 overage at, say, $500 to non-members down the line. It's all the same to me.

Furthermore, let's say only 50 of the 80 members actually follow through and order the edition! Now I'm taking a substantial loss right out of the gate with that $300 price. However, over the long run I'll make money by selling $500 copies to non-members, so it's probably still worth it to me to guarantee the edition at $300 for members, though I'm taking an immediate loss.

Without a guarantor who can profit and who takes on the risk of loss, the edition would fail at only 50 orders, unless those 50 are willing to pay $500 each.

In summary:

80, exclusive to members: ~$350

50, exclusive to members: ~$500

80, for members: ~$300
20, overage for non-members: ~$500

50, for members: ~$300
50, overage for non-members: ~$500

An interesting aspect of Consensus Press is that we are right on the cusp of several economies of scale as far as bookmaking goes. Eighty copies is in a sort of weird zone. Max, for example, charged us to print the book on an automatic Heidelberg, only to then actually print it on a manual Vandercook. The setups on the Heidelberg were more trouble than they'd be worth for an edition of the size.

>112 grifgon: To clarify this a bit:

If no overage is allowed, then the price of the book will fully reflect the cost of production and the guarantor profit margin.

The upside is that the book is exclusive to members, and possibly will hold more value on the secondary market because of its exclusivity (though I don't think many here care much about that).

The downside is that the price of the book will be higher.

My vote is for "No," by the way. I think that, after having put the effort of proposals and ballots in, the resulting edition should be available only to members. It's part of the fun.

>118 grifgon: I think that, after having put the effort of proposals and ballots in, the resulting edition should be available only to members. It's part of the fun.

Interesting and rather unexpected, considering your stance on allowing non-members to participate in discussions on this forum and vote in straw polls. I'm the other way around. Personally, I find no special appeal in exclusivity and small limitation of books. I have no issues with making some extra copies available to others, especially if it helps bringing our personal costs down. On the other hand, I find the idea of letting non-members participate in discussions and polls related to inner working of the press... rather wild. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Question to other members: I see that so far more people voted for opening up this forum in this poll >96 grifgon:. I am always open to changing my mind, but here I would really like to hear some reasoning behind the sentiment as I completely don't get it. I presume that at least some of the 9 who voted for opening up the forum were actual members. So, could any of these members tell me why they voted for opening up this forum? I'm genuinely interested in the reasoning and would really like to see if I'm missing something.

Here are my more detailed thoughts:
1. Non-members interested in discussing CP are free to do so on the Fine Press forum. This is already happening, and any non-member wishing to suggest something or ask questions is free to do so there. So an easy mechanism for non-member LT users to communicate with the membership and representatives of the Press is already there and working.
2. I can't fathom why would anyone want to have non-members voting and participating in the inner workings of a Press that is exclusive to its members by definition? This is like unlocking the doors of your office and welcoming any random person to join your team meetings, taking up your team's time asking questions, throwing suggestions (which might or might not be loaded with conflict of interests, or simply time wasters), voting during your team's brainstorm sessions, etc. Or having random people show up in your child's classroom forums. Etc. etc.

I just think that in general it's odd to allow interests from the outside of an organization to participate in and directly influence the inner workings of the organization - whether it's a private company, a sovereign country, a classroom, or our own Consensus Press. I really have neither interest nor time, say, arguing with a non-member whether we should or should not expect some upfront fees from new members interested in joining, let alone them voting in a straw poll regarding such fees.

So the way I see it the current system is almost exactly as it should be: this forum is for discussions of the members and officers of the CP exclusively, and Fine Press forum is always there for general discussion inclusive of potential new members and just interested non-members. The only thing that needs fixing is blanket access to polls in a closed forum, which is a software bug as far as I'm concerned :)

Now really interested to hear differing thoughts!

>119 elladan0891: Great prompt for discussion! Everybody has heard more than enough from me, so I'm curious to hear how somebody else's opinion on why non-members should be admitted to the discussion forum. I'm persuadable the other way, too!

>112 grifgon: And how's this for a tweak on the question?Perhaps we can stipulate that the price would be higher, as well.

>120 grifgon: My Yes vote is more for allowing open discussion, not necessarily open voting. Given the permissive nature of polls on LT, I think any CP voting should be done via electronic surveys directly to members. But I'm happy to have plenty of public feedback on both the process and the proposals. As long as it doesn't become overwhelming or counterproductive, at which point we can implement a more "bouncer forward" policy.

And on the subject of exclusivity, I personally feel the more books the better. It's heartbreaking that so many great private press books are made in such small runs, limiting who can experience them. I'm not someone who derives any special pleasure from having one of only 10 books in existence, but I also acknowledge without judgement that there are those who do enjoy that. So my own personal vote is for overflow copies of the book.

I also think it an odd—and bad—idea to have non-members allowed in discussion or voting

This is one of those times that I wish LibraryThing was a bit more feature-rich as forum software. It would be great if one could assign visible "member badges" in this subforum to CP members, for example. Without that we are somewhat constrained to an "open to all guests"-"closed to all guests" binary.

Does it matter that we’re between editions right now? If we were to open rolls for new members, how should we treat feedback from non-members at this stage? Is it any different from the feedback members gave before committing to purchase Sinuhe, with the understanding that any non-member feedback should exclude consensus binding votes?

Instead of tying membership to the start of an edition cycle, which seems to be the default assumption, another approach could be to open membership once an edition’s design is complete and ready for purchase commitment. New members would then join by purchasing that edition and participate in consensus decisions for the next edition’s selection, design, and production.

>105 grifgon: I said no here, but I think it's undesirable to have a manager produce a book they think is infeasible.

Instead, a possible procedure is that a manager could resign if they have such an opinion, at which point someone else who thinks the proposal is viable would need to be elected or confirmed by the members. If no one steps up, then the process should go back to the members for whether the second choice should go forward or back to the drawing board.

>108 Glacierman: >107 grifgon:

Keeping the domain registration current, at least, is not free (though it's probably no more than $20 per year if we are using a decent registrar). Assuming that is covered by the press, I'm sure a member here would be willing and able to host the website and mailbox for free (I'm sure about that because I am such a member).

>112 grifgon: I voted no here not because I value keeping the limitation low per se, but because I think it complicates the transition between eras, especially given how long obscure private press books can take to sell out. Even heavy hitters like Foolscap Press sometimes take years to sell out an edition. Who warehouses it? What happens when the management changes? Does the overage just become the property of the guarantor? Etc. Easier to limit the amount of "state" that we need to maintain and track between editions.

>123 ChestnutPress: I also think it an odd—and bad—idea to have non-members allowed in discussion or voting

Thank you! I thought I was losing my mind for a moment. At least there are two of us!
I'm still eager to hear any justification of why the Fine Press forum isn't good enough for non-members. And why people not willing to commit, contribute financially and pay for the product we're creating should be allowed to participate in and influence the making of the product.

The conversations in this thread have been enjoyable to follow (and we’ve had more activity than the Fine Press Forum this past week!).

--- --- ---

Taking a step back and looking at the big picture of what we’re doing, it seems that there are two aspects we’re going to continue to oscillate between while progressing our experiment, two objectives you might say:

1) Create a new book, filling a gap in the industry by perhaps creating something that wouldn’t otherwise have had the chance to exist; and

2) Keep the experiment alive.

These two points are inherently linked, perhaps two focal points (foci) in the same ellipse that we revolve around: we make a book to keep the Press running, then iterate on the Press to ensure we have the opportunity to make another book.

I would argue though that these can be considered as two distinct things, and it’s refreshing to see the passion involved in the recent talk about the Press, which is arguably less glamorous than discussions about new books.

--- --- ---

I elaborate on the distinction between these two points because I think we haven’t clearly defined what happens at a certain point of the orbit of that ellipse that I used as a metaphor above, and that might be causing some of the difference of opinion about letting “non-members” actively discuss the Press with the existing Membership.

The key question: At what point are new members allowed in?

If we want to redefine Consensus Press first, using only input from members that committed to buying the first edition, so be it. Then we can redefine whichever aspects of our press we’d like to (eg. guarantor, manager, steering committee, etc.) and then we let in new members, and finally we start the process for book two.

However, if instead we decide that we’d like to consider letting in new members earlier in the process, we could figure out what that looks like (eg. there have been talks of financial commitment, we’d need to decide on how many new members to allow in—some of these things have been discussed, yet nothing has been decided), but then that allows us to have the opportunity that some of the new members can help shape the future of the Press.

I can appreciate both options and I’m not currently certain which I would vote for right now, but simply restated, I think these are our current two options:

1) Figure out what’s needed to allow new members, then put that in writing and grow our Membership to allow “new” members to give input towards the future of the Press; or

2) Fully define the near future of the Press with existing Membership. Once that is done, then begin letting in new members.

As mentioned, I don’t know which option is better (ahem, Consensus can decide), but I encourage everyone to consider that this Press started with the vision that people could engage with each other in discussion about what seems best. In general, I certainly would value input from new people who are interested in the continued success of the experiment. We all were people interested in this experiment; the only difference is that we paid some money for a book at some point in the process. I’m oversimplifying, but essentially I don’t know if an “us” vs. “them”, “members” vs. “non-members”, is always the best view for the long-term health of the experiment.

One comment on this point: I paid for a book, not a membership status, but I realize that buying the book gave the continued benefit of being a member, and all the entails. I also realize that this comment could be contentious; so be it—at the very least it’s food for thought. I feel that the voting power of the Membership holds weight, but we already have multiple examples of non-members helping this Press:

-- >95 jsg1976: helping with proofreading
-- RRCBS posting about the voting bug(/feature?)
-- Multiple non-members expressing interest in the success of the Press

--- --- ---

Let’s circle back to the other focus. In the long term, we want a successful experiment. That’s generally a goal of any business or organization that values longevity. What will it take to make this Press sustain?

There are many unknowns, but I can say with confidence that we will need new members. Even if we keep a static upper limit for the Membership, some people will leave; new people will be needed. I suspect new members won’t just be people to bolster the numbers, but rather I fully expect new members will help bring new life into the conversation to better aid against stagnation.

I appreciate that some conversations can convey our passions, but I encourage everyone to consider the civility of conversation as being even more important in this thread than others. All members have an accountability since what any of us says represents the Press. In other forums, it may be easy to complain about something, but in this forum we all have an opportunity that our suggestions are actually acted upon. Again, just food for thought that if there are things we dislike, our voices have more of an influence than if we were just customers.

--- --- ---

One final topic for today that I’d like to speak my voice on is the involvement of what a member must do to maintain membership. I very much liked the idea that every member must write a proposal in order to maintain membership. It was a very low bar, but it was a bar that forced everyone to participate in some regard. I know that there were a lot to read (I thoroughly enjoyed reading through them all), but my concern is that if the proposal becomes optional, this may turn into just a few people making proposals, with everyone else happily taking on the standard roll of customer/subscriber. While there’s nothing to say this couldn’t reach a happy equilibrium, this might also not give us the breadth of scope that seemed like an original uniqueness of the Press.

I have some ideas relating to both the money conversation and what to do with excess books, and I’ll try to post another night. For now, thank you for anyone who opted to read my thoughts.
-- Tuna

>131 Tuna_Melon:

Great commentary, as always.

What will it take to make this Press sustain?

There are many unknowns, but I can say with confidence that we will need new members. Even if we keep a static upper limit for the Membership, some people will leave; new people will be needed. I suspect new members won’t just be people to bolster the numbers, but rather I fully expect new members will help bring new life into the conversation to better aid against stagnation.

This is absolutely correct.

New members will be necessary to keep the experiment going. We are already at the lower-end of the number of members needed to make the press viable, and we are bound to lose members with each edition – either through members deciding not to order the edition, or through simple loss of interest.

The ideal membership, I think, is ~100 individuals who are more interested in the process than the outcome.

There's nothing wrong with being interested primarily in the outcome, and several members have said, "If the press elects a proposal I don't want, I'm out." There's no problem with that at all, but for Consensus Press to endure, there will need to be a sufficient "core" of process-committed members. I, for one, will order the Consensus Press book no matter what it is.

If we don't have a process-committed core, then we need a very low barrier to entry for new members to maximize the number of potential buyers for each book. If we do have a process-committed core, then we can place high demands on new members. In other words, we can only expect from new members a degree of commitment which the current members already have.

>133 grifgon: As much as I'd love to guarantee I'll always remain part of the Press, I could easily lose my job suddenly and be forced to cut back on my many vices. I assume that's true for many of the working-age folks here.

I'd support a non refundable payment for all members, new and old (regardless of whether you purchased the prior book or not) to participate in the next edition selection stage. Maybe something around £50. Get current members to pay first (to confirm who's sticking around), and then allow new members to pay to join, up to the target membership number (e.g. 100). The payment covers the running of the press and any surplus above that goes towards the next book production to reduce its ultimate cost slightly.

>135 EdmundRodriguez: I don't think dues like this would be necessary in the current setup, wherein members are required to buy the book.

However, I could see a setup wherein members pay dues and then are NOT required to buy the book to maintain their membership. This might foster a larger tent, too.

The problem becomes dues collection, and the simplest setup is likely annual dues rather than start-of-every project dues. Besides, the members might elect a slim chapbook one time and a tome the next – requiring a large difference in overhead and time.

Curious what people think:

Let's stipulate that the annual dues would be $50.

I actually sort of like the idea of a dues-paying membership... Advantages include...

If the members elect a proposal that is out of somebody's price range, they can decline to order without being kicked out.

The dues provide overhead coverage so that the guarantor doesn't have to work as much of a profit margin into the price of the book.

It simplifies the requirements of membership: just pay your dues. If somebody wants to pay dues but then doesn't care to make a proposal, vote, or order the book, they're basically just supporting the endeavour and making it less expensive for other members.

Members could effectively join at any time.

It would be easy to set up dues as an automatic subscription.

If members feel they aren't getting a good value, the dues could be adjusted by a vote.

It would lower the cost of CP books, shifting the overhead costs from members who do follow through to members who don't follow through.

Would annual or edition-cycle dues count as a discount toward the purchase of a production if a member decides to buy it, or would those dues be allocated strictly for general and administrative expenses?

>138 jdanielpowell: I think that might be a distinction without a difference. The same costs exists either way, whether they are paid by dues or paid in the price of the book. i.e. dues lower the cost of the book, which could be considered a discount/downpayment.

>139 grifgon: I think it would affect the amount of the dues. If they are only meant to cover G&A, the dues would be lower than if they also serve as a partial payment toward the purchase. It would also affect timing, since if dues-paying members receive a discount on the edition purchase, the dues schedule would likely need to align with the edition cycle.

>137 grifgon: At the risk of being annoying bringing up a counterpoint, one issue that could arise from members paying dues to ensure continued membership (whether annually or for each edition) is that it may disincentivize people from purchasing the book. This is more relevant since we're currently working with a small limitation number.

Let's pretend that we have 100 in the Membership, but only 60 want the book (which could happen irrespective of membership fees). If a membership fee helps people feel okay not following through with a purchase, we'll be slipping even further away from that target of 100 sold books. Less books sold equals more chance of the Press folding, or more risk for the guarantor.

I do like the idea of having some way for members to be able to stay onboard without necessarily having to buy every book (ie. passing up the odd book) if there is something completely against their tastes, but I'm not sure if $50 per year (or per edition) is too low of a hanging fruit for the health of the Press.

I also do like the requirement for some small monetary financial investment before everything gets rolling.

>141 Tuna_Melon: My hunch is that the disincentive to buy the book is balanced out by the dues collection in terms of cost/benefit. Maybe we see fewer sales, but the revenue of dues balances that out and, again, shift costs from those who buy the book to those who don't.

The biggest benefit of dues, in my mind, is that it's SIMPLE. Pay dues, you're a member. Contrast that to the more elaborate setup of members needing to submit proposals, vote on proposals, and buy the book, with new members only being admitted in a certain window. I think the best thing we can do for the long term viability of the press is to keep things simple.

The biggest downside is that it's a bit more grubby than the current system, which is a bit more of an I-will-follow-through honor system.

>142 grifgon: For my part, if grubby keeps it simple, I'm in favor of it! :-D

>142 grifgon: You worded this analysis well; I like it and hope it pans out as such. Dues for simplicity and to help the revenue balance.

That seems reasonable.

📣 Richard and I have put the "consensus" portions of this discussion into draft by-laws.

Anybody is welcome to leave comments, or continue to discuss and propose changes. I'll change the by-laws to reflect the results of any straw polls. Once all members have received their copies, we'll bring the by-laws to a vote.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jVewuv5hZDVmcjLsNtp9hW7auMeMUDfxX-67y2L_SM0/...

>141 Tuna_Melon: one issue that could arise from members paying dues to ensure continued membership (whether annually or for each edition) is that it may disincentivize people from purchasing the book

I think it's a very valid concern. Especially knowing our history. In the beginning 50 people didn't even bother submitting proposals. Then another 50 bailed out when Sinuhe was chosen. I guess it also depends on the amount of the non-refundable contribution.

>141 Tuna_Melon: I also do like the requirement for some small monetary financial investment before everything gets rolling.
>135 EdmundRodriguez: I'd support a non refundable payment for all members

I agree with both of you! Also no sure why >136 grifgon: brushed this suggestion off - we KNOW that simply requiring to buy the next book isn't good enough and that it attracts dozens if opportunists who just want to see if their books of choice would be selected.

I would modify Griffin's poll, adding this as a choice:

>142 grifgon: The biggest benefit of dues, in my mind, is that it's SIMPLE. Pay dues, you're a member. Contrast that to the more elaborate setup of members needing to submit proposals, vote on proposals, and buy the book, with new members only being admitted in a certain window. I think the best thing we can do for the long term viability of the press is to keep things simple.

So scrap what made Consensus Press... well, Consensus Press, and turn it into another book club? Submitting and voting on proposals is what makes this project unique and interesting. Take that away and I don't see the raison d'être anymore.

We're still at the infancy stage, but we proved the current model works. Rather than scrapping it altogether and starting at square one, I think we should build and improve on the current model.

>147 elladan0891: Who said anything about taking away proposals and voting?

The question is not whether to change the core process – members crafting proposals which then get turned into real books. The question is what metric we use to determine who is a member.

What is the substantive difference between making a non-refundable downpayment and paying a due?

Scenario A: A member pays $50 in dues to cover overhead, then buys a $300 book.

Scenario B: A member makes a $50 downpayment, and then buys a $350 book which includes the overhead costs (paying $300, having already placed a $50 downpayment).

The key issue for disagreement is whether the purchase of the book is obligatory for continued membership, not dues vs. downpayment.

If we can agree that dues vs. a downpayment is substantially the same thing, then the issue becomes the size of the upfront payment. The larger the cost of the upfront payment, the more committed to purchasing the book our members will be.

>148 grifgon: It sounded like it could have been the case. Although I was just about to edit my post to clarify that I understand that proposals could still remain in the simple annual dues model, but making them optional... I believe the requirement of submitting a proposal and voting on others to remain a member is what keeps this project going. Without it, we risk seeing a greatly reduced number of proposals and overall trend towards apathy, which can easily strip the project off excitement and kill it off.

Again, I see no reason to scrap a model that was just proven as viable and replace it with something unproven and risky (in my opinion).

>148 grifgon: The key issue for disagreement is whether the purchase of the book is obligatory for continued membership, not dues vs. downpayment.

I agree, but in >147 elladan0891: I was bringing up a different issue - the suggestion to make submitting/voting on proposals optional. I just described above why I don't think it's a good idea.

>149 elladan0891: >150 elladan0891: I wonder about that as well! If making a proposal and voting aren't mandatory, will members still do so?

Here's my concern:

The more requirements we heap on (making a proposal, voting, paying a due/downpayment...) the more people we will lose. The LibraryThing fine press forum is not representative of the fine press community or even the membership of Consensus Press. The people here are SIGNIFICANTLY more engaged than the typical collector or member, and there are not a sufficient number of highly engaged collector/members to support an endeavour like Consensus Press.

I think we need some space for members who like the idea of the press, want to support it, but who are only in for a few emails per year.

In support of >151 grifgon: above, there are currently those members whose personal lives prevent them from becoming too engaged. These are those ...who like the idea of the press, want to support it, but who are only in for a few emails per year. I have personally heard from a few of them and while they love CP and wish to continue with it, they just don't have the time to become too involved.

This is a reality that we must face: Some folks want to be members and continue to support the Press, but cannot get deeply involved. A dues structure would well serve them and the Press itself in the long run.

>152 Glacierman: Or a low-commitment structure! In my mind, dues would just simplify things immensely into an easy-to-understand requirement. That said, I agree with elladan that it sullies some of the magic of the experiment, and clearly there's nowhere near consensus for them.

The consensus on >59 grifgon:, >61 grifgon:, and >62 grifgon: seems pretty definite. Given that, I don't think drafting anything else into the by-laws is justifiable. I think that these elements raise the commitment bar slightly for new members, and lowers it slightly for current members. A good compromise for now?

>153 grifgon: Glacierman & I bow to the consensus. ;-D

That shows I don't have a split personality!

>154 consensuspress: Glacierman is a mere mortal, fragile and flawed... YOU are the divine voice of consensus...

>155 grifgon: Yea, verily, Divinus Consensus locutus est.

>151 grifgon: That may very well be the case. And I completely understand your concern.

Personally, I wouldn't have joined such an endeavor if I weren't interested in engaging and participating in the project whenever possible. But I understand that people are different.

But I do worry that relaxing requirements might turn the project into a boring book club.

Personally, I'd retain the bulk of our current model, recruit new members, have everyone (old and new members) place a small downpayment as a proof of serious intentions, and see what happens. If we don't have enough people willing to prove their commitment to the project and intent to buy the mandatory book with a downpayment, we can go back to the drawing board and change the model. Changing the model now seems a bit risky to me.

Another thought: I know the majority voted to admit new members only in the beginning of each cycle (>103 grifgon:), and I confess I did too. But now I'm having second thoughts - could it be a little more nuanced? Could it be wise to fill in opening spots as we go?

I understand why we wouldn't want people to be able to just join at any point of the cycle - it encourages non-committal approach of just waiting until the winning proposal is announced and joining if they like it (or waiting until top 10 is revealed and joining if they like the selection).

But what if we cap the membership after the number of members is finalized at the start of a cycle, but then allow filling in membership spots if they open up? For example, suppose we start a cycle with 140 members. After selecting Fifty Shades of Grey as the winning proposal, 5 members bail out, forfeiting their downpayment, as they already purchased copies of the stunning FS LE of the classic. Could it make sense to offer these 5 spots to new members? If somebody wants to finance the making of the book, keeping the prices down/as expected for the members, why not? And in this case, we're not encouraging waiting on the sidelines until a desired proposal comes up as the opportunity to join might never materialize.