John,

Feel free to put my name on that letter if you care to. I'd like them to be better than they currently are however, since only ill people go to doctors I suppose that they first need to see that there is a problem.

Best,

DD

>JK, Ed, George, et al..
>
>Since we are on this topic, below is the text of a plan I drew up for Advisor Media. When they approached me, they were allegedly serious about change. I was asked for my thoughts about how to improve the magazine. Below is the first draft of a plan I sent to Advisor last January....
>
>If Tamar is lurking, note the signficance of the month January and when you found out about the changes. If your saying to yourself, "Gee, did JVP know about my removal as Editor of FPA before I did...??" BINGO!! You would be a winner.....!!!
>
>When you read the text below, think about what FPA could have been. I think it was a formula for success. I guess I represented more change, and more common sense that they could possibly handle...< s >...
>
>

---

>
>I like the idea of spreading responsibilities amongst groups of individuals. Having one person do everything in most cases is bad. It creates an unwanted dependency on one person, it leads to burnout, and finally, it leads to a publication that reflects the idea of one person, as opposed to ideas of the general developer community.
>
>As I see things, there are two distinct areas of concern:
>
>1. The business of the magazine itself (page counts, advertisers, etc..)
>2. The technical content of the magazine
>
>I get the impression that these two areas are mutually exclusive. I think an ingredient of success depends on the technical aspects of the magazine having an understanding of the business end of things, and conversely, the business end having an appreciation for the technical side. To achieve success, both must work together. In order to work together, each must understand one another.
>
>In broad strokes, here is a plan I have constructed:
>
>There are 4 basic entities that manage and direct the magazine:
>
>1. Managing Editor
>2. Technical Editor
>3. Editorial Advisory Board
>4. Technical Advisory Council
>
>I see the Managing Editor as the key person who brings both the business and technical worlds together for the magazine.
>
>The Technical Editor will be the liaison between the managing editor and the technical folks that create the magazine content. Also, I would view the role of the technical editor as one who coordinates the efforts of the Editorial Advisory Board.
>
>The Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) - consists of the group of contributing editors. To be a contributing editor, you must:
>
>1. Write 4 articles a year
>2. Technically edit at least 1 article a month
>3. Evaluate at least 1 article proposal a month to determine suitability for publication
>
>Any member of the EAB should be qualified to step into the Technical Editor role. Ideally, the technical editor should serve in that role for no more than 3 years. The successor should come from the EAB staff. All EAB positions are reviewed on an annual basis
>
>The Technical Advisory Board (TAB) is an entity that does not exist. Both the managing editor and technical editor serve on the board. Who else serves on the TAB? Some of the members of the EAB may serve. Who else? Industry leaders like product vendors, folks that have high visibility and whose opinions are highly respected. What is the mission of this group? The mission is to help chart the strategic vision of the publication. If the EAB is concerned with tactics, the TAB is mostly concerned with the strategy. I cannot think of a better way of ensuring the magazine is always serving the needs of the community and its customers.
>
>I would also advocate the use of traditional marketing tools such as focus groups. I don't know if this is done currently. Events such as Devcon represent great opportunities to hold focus groups with attendees. In addition, they represent great opportunities for the EAB and TAB to meet as well.