I have observed the progress of the SEN Observer. My goal is to keep my own interference to a minimum, which I feel I am accomplishing. (This is my first topic here, for those who are curious.) But, I have not turned a blind eye. There will not be any binding directives issued, but I will offer advice. While I will not be addressing leadership, I do not want anyone to think I have neglected to do so; I have done so in private. I will be addressing three issues: style, initiative, and teamwork.

The first issue I will address is the issue of "style". It's come up a few times and I'd like to add my two cents. I disagree very much with editor(s) modifying a writer's style. But, I do not disagree with and will defend the upholding on standards placed upon writing. I do not consider what is being discussed as a matter of style to actually be a matter of style. It is one of standards. If it must be called style, suffice it to say that some styles are appropriate and acceptable while others are not. The SEN Observer is an extension of SEN community to the public community. As such, I expect SEN's standards to apply to the articles. I do not want a magazine of low standards that appeals to and attracts (more of) the wrong kind of people to SEN. I think that we can be mature, intelligent, and take ourselves seriously while still adhering to our individual styles. (and maybe, just maybe, even have fun!)

A second issue I would like to address is one of initiative. Admittedly, I am hard-pressed to touch on this without criticizing leadership. In my opinion, more initiative would be beneficial to the project, if not necessary. There are those who volunteered and there are those who may have said they will do things. It is time for people to "put up or shut up". What we need is work done in reality and people actively taking it upon themselves to see tasks accomplished rather than waiting for them to be delegated. Hands will not and should not be held. I will remind everyone that initiative is essentially the determining factor in what got this project forum to exist in the first place. I've probably said it already, but I will again point out that the energy here is almost palpable. To squander it would be foolish.

The last issue I will address is teamwork. People have criticized other's opinions contained within articles when it may not be called for. Such disagreement is natural, but not always beneficial to the articles or the project. If everyone agreed already, there would be no basis for editiorial content and persuasion - it would be superfluous. Another thing I see is ego obstructing productivity. Little is gained through a discussion of which maps deserve articles and which don't. The end result is that no articles get written.

The SEN Observer should be a team in the sense that people are not adversarial towards each other. It should not be a debate group where everyone person must agree with every word published. It should not be a place for pettiness. The SEN Observer needs some teamwork. Incorporated into that is a certain level of respect for the opinions of other author's, even if one disagrees. Incoporated into that is the maturity that enables one to recognize when her posts do not contribute to and benefit the project itself.

Well said.

Yes, I agree. I'm afraid I've purposely tried very hard to refrain from taking charge, since I know there is no way I could continue to give the magazine that much attention.