Publishing SIG BOARD REPORT: JUNE 1999

Publishing SIG
June 1999 Report to the ACE Board
Submitted by Carol Whatley

1. What worked this year

 

 
 
 

• The star achievement was the development of a web site for the Publishing SIG, though this was primarily the work of three people: Meg Ashman, Sue Keller, and Kim Parker. Some SIG members contributed information to the site, but we are hoping more will contribute in the future.

 

 
 
 

• A mission statement was developed, again primarily the work of Meg and Sue, though with input from others.

 

 
 
 

• Surveys of SIG members yielded enough responses for a decision to rename the SIG "Publishing" instead of "Publications" and to make changes in the C&A publications category--combining two editing classes (technical and nontechnical) into one overall class and adding electronic publications as a C&A class. The success of the latter decision will depend on participation at the conference because the people willing to work on the guidelines did not have time to do it before the C&A deadline for 1999.

 

 
 
 

• We appointed regional representatives for all regions and put together a list of responsibilities for regional reps, including the following: promote the SIG at regional meetings, facilitate the progress of C&A winning entries through the region, facilitate SIG day at the annual conference, assist the web committee by providing information, help recruit C&A judges, be judges for the Award of Excellence, and help recruit new ACE members in the region.

 

 
 
 

• This year's vice-chair agreed to take on the responsibility of periodically sending information to SIG members who do not have e-mail. This could be an ongoing duty of the vice-chair.

 

 
 
 

• The SIG leadership agreed to devote our SIG day general session to the development of a web C&A class and core sheet. This plan will allow more participation than if just a few members did the work as a committee.

 

 
 
 

2. What didn't go well

 

 
 
 

• One C&A judge appeared inadequate to judge the class (according to one member). The person had been a judge last year and no one complained, even though the outgoing chair stressed the need for members to report any problems with judges. We may need to make more of an effort to verify the qualifications of judges.

 

 
 
 

• Other complaints came FROM two judges. Both had trouble grading by the score sheets, and the judge of the editing class had difficulties with several of the entries. This is a difficult class to judge, made more difficult when the judge has to sift through several unmarked versions, for example. We need to revise the instructions for submission in the editing class.

 

 
 
 

• As usual, a relatively small number of people accounted for most of the activity of the SIG during the year.

 

 
 
 

3. Support from the Board/Headquarters

 

 

The Board and Headquarters staff were always responsive to my requests. Also, teleconferences were helpful, as were e-mail reminders of reports due.
 
 

4. Serendipity

 

 

E-mail queries to two other SIGs yielded extremely helpful responses and the opportunity to interact with ACE members I might not have "met" otherwise.

Address comments to Meg Ashman.
This page is hosted by Communication and Technology Resources, University of Vermont.
Last updated November 2003.