Comments on: Wanted: SFWA Content Editor/Webstaff Administrator

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Sat, 31 May 2008 16:02:57 +0000

With most sites, the consultant just doesn’t care what’s going on in the private areas. But yeah, it’s hard to find a web geek who isn’t into SF.

By: Mary Robinette Kowal

Mary Robinette Kowal — Sat, 31 May 2008 15:38:42 +0000

Because we’d like the content editor to read the private sff.net boards, I can understand why this restriction makes sense. Even with a non-disclosure agreement, some people will feel uncomfortable. Also, having an editor who is a member will, we think, make it easier to communicate about what member needs are.

But a designer? Oh yeah, we’re looking beyond the membership for that one.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Sat, 31 May 2008 15:35:12 +0000

Ah! A content editor is a very different beast.

I would hope that any reasonably professional consultant could be trusted not to divulge whatever s/he saw, but given the prevailing attitudes toward privacy, I imagine such optimism wouldn’t fly with the membership.

By: Mary Robinette Kowal

Mary Robinette Kowal — Sat, 31 May 2008 15:16:40 +0000

I was basing it on Interzone sales, but I didn’t know that the checks were small. I bet you could still make a case for it.

I do want to clarify that this position is an editorial one dealing with content, not a design position.

By: Mary Robinette Kowal

Mary Robinette Kowal — Sat, 31 May 2008 15:15:30 +0000

The Website Content editor needs to be able to access members only information. On the other hand the Designer of the site, doesn’t. We don’t need a member for that position and are looking at several candidates, including Jeremy. He just didn’t know that his name was being bandied about.

By: Jeremy Tolbert

Jeremy Tolbert — Sat, 31 May 2008 14:59:51 +0000

On the basis of what sale do you think I am qualified to be an associate?

I sold two stories to Interzone before they were removed from eligibility. I really thought they were going to be my in back then, but when I saw the checks I got–nowhere near pro rates, I didn’t think I could even bother. Because while it was a pro market, I was not paid pro rates.

Ironically, I have been paid pro rates on several occasions, but by entities not recognized by SFWA.

By: Mary Robinette Kowal

Mary Robinette Kowal — Sat, 31 May 2008 14:55:00 +0000

You’re qualified to be an associate. That’s all it takes. Heck, affiliate status would also work.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Sat, 31 May 2008 14:29:05 +0000

Is there a compelling reason for the SFWA membership requirement? My fingers were poised on the keys to recommend Jeremy, and then I saw his comment elsewhere about not being a member.

To the best of my knowledge, there are about two SFWA members who identify themselves as web designers and are actually qualified as such. That’s a tiny pool.

By: Jeremy Tolbert

Jeremy Tolbert — Sat, 31 May 2008 04:26:54 +0000

I’d definitely bite if I qualified as a SFWA member.

By: Mary Robinette Kowal

Mary Robinette Kowal — Fri, 30 May 2008 23:46:58 +0000

HA! I just and I mean, just sent you an email to make sure you saw this.

I think there would be far less fist-shaking than you might think. When I say “over-haul” I mean, raze and build anew.

By: Tempest

Tempest — Fri, 30 May 2008 23:44:16 +0000

it’s so tempting! and if i didn’t already know how much I would shake my fist, I would apply