On Thu, 31 May 2001, Martin Hanley wrote: > I think this would be a really good idea! Of course, I've probably just > given myself the job of writing this auto-response letter :)... .which I > don't mind, but a quick overview on the application process would be a good > thing :) > Let me see IIRC: > 1. Application received > 2. Application reviewed > 3. If game sounds ok, check web links, else get more/better info > 4. If web links ok, check game concept, else get web links fixed > 5. If game concept ok,... this is where I lost the process The editor is the front-line of the application process. You're going to make a decision on most of the games yourself, generally to reject them. Rarely, you'll approve one on your own. If you've decided that a game might be worth accepting, but aren't sure, the proposal gets forwarded to the peer review group (listowners+prospects@phoenyx.net). Checking the web links ought to happen before sending for peer review... peer review happens after you've gathered all information. Once in awhile the review group will ask for more, but the goal is to have enough that they won't have to. In fact, Karen and I were discussing this today... we don't think the editor should have to go to a web site to evaluate the game. Everything we need should be handed to us in a concise manner. (I once had a prospect email me a megabyte PDF of the previous two years of his game written up in novel form... like a hundred pages.) This is something that'll have to go on the application instructions... complete but concise, the editor shouldn't have to wade through lots of junk to figure things out. So I'm going to call it this... 1) Application received, the applicant gets an auto-response thanking him for his application and explaining the review process 2) Applicaiton initially reviewed by editor (max 2 days) a) Editor asks for more information -or- b) Editor accepts/rejects immediately 3) Editor forwards application and requested info to the peer review group, applicant notified of application status 4) Peer review responds within three days 5) Editor makes final decision to accept/reject based on peer review a) Sends friendly rejection letter, explaining why rejected -or- b) Editor requests list to be set up, mails instructions to new GM Notice something implicit up there... I'm looking for a five-day turn-around maximum, and that's including a three-day peer review. If you, as editors, think that five days is too much pressure on your schedule, we need to set a time frame that we can all agree with. I certainly have fallen short here myself, but I never set a standard for myself either. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
