Thank you! But don’t hold your breath, as Janine is the only one to have finished her story so far. Bettie has half of hers, I a third of mine. And Meredith, well, I don’t even think she has started yet.

8.1.4. To be permitted to offer workshops, appointments, and other Conference functions, (1) agents must be RWA Eligible Agents, and (2) publishers, editors, and other publishing house representatives must be from Eligible Publishers.

This is the only line that excludes non-eligible publishers from offering “spotlights” at conference (spotlights, I presume, fall under “other Conference functions”) and so if a person cannot offer a spotlight or take appointments, they cannot offer a workshop, either.

That means that Angela James and Kassia Krozser couldn’t be on a panel, period–which means that the only e-pub focused workshops would have to be offered by e-published authors or people like Jane and SB Sarah. And that seems silly, because Jane and Sarah are marvelous, but can’t speak to what’s selling (unless they get data), and authors only have their own individual experience to discuss. Only editors can talk about what’s going on, and under the current P&PM, they’re categorically excluded.

As for why Angela James was allowed to speak last year…. I don’t know. So far as I can tell, 8.1.4 was in force last year (although in slightly modified format; July 2008’s Board Meeting modified it, but not as to anything relevant). Oversight, maybe?

I keep circling back to the same issue (and I know I’m harping on it): if there were only two proposals and one was deemed to be insufficient and one was determined to be too close to a publisher spotlight (wildly paraphrasing here), why didn’t the RWA actively seek out out alternatives? This is what bothers me more than anything — even if items get added at the last minute to the schedule (and if these workshops exist, they should be publicized now, as people are finalizing their own plans while packing for the trip) — is that nobody stepped up, after this issue was raised, and said, “You’re right, we need to address this.”

Your list of topics is timely today (I would add piracy to that list as well). While you are asking why Jane, Sarah, Angela, and I didn’t put this proposal together, I would respond that our small workshop cannot begin to address all the issues authors are facing, but we are putting our own time and money to make sure the discussion is starting. We would have had at least four proposals, of which one would be Angela’s. Because it’s impossible, in 2009, to talk about this topic without looking at the broader implications.

On the flip side, I’m asking you why members of PAN didn’t suggest workshops on piracy, DRM, royalties, territorial rights, release patterns, reversion of rights, different business models, cloud-based content, chunked content, and more? Given that major authors are shopping their digital rights to the highest bidder (the recent Danielle Steele deal was only one such example), shouldn’t the traditionally published authors in RWA be leading voices on this topic?

These are not digipub issues, though the conclusions drawn might lead some authors to choose a digipub over a traditional publisher in some instances or for some rights.

I have nothing but the highest regard for people who serve on the RWA board. No matter what the issue, it’s a thankless task. But I don’t think I’m alone in believing a wound that has festered for over a decade needs a new kind of treatment. Nor do I think I’m alone in wanting better communication about what is happening. The board meets in person a few times a year, talks on the phone/meets via phone more frequently, and is certainly communicating in other ways. The membership doesn’t know what’s being discussed.

Your comments here suggest that it’s somehow the responsibility of legitimate epublishers to police the digital environment, but I just do not understand that supposition at all.

Why not? Agents police themselves, and they do it precisely because it’s so easy to call yourself an agent that fly-by-nights made the legitimate agencies look bad. If legitimate e-publishers are being made to look bad by JohnDoe Publishing, then why shouldn’t they take steps to set themselves apart by forming a trade organization that admits only publishers who’ve proved themselves somehow, in the same way that agents in AAR have proved themselves and pledged to uphold certain standards. I seem to recall an organization of e-publishers in the past. What ever happened to it?

As Kassia pointed out earlier in this thread, whether an author intends to publish in digital format in the future or not, her career, along with those of her fellow authors, will be affected by this new medium. RWA’s unwillingness to acknowledge that by providing even the most basic education to its members is not in their interests.

I pointed that out weeks ago, the last time this came up, when I said that we’re all digitally published now. I want to see workshops about digital issues (rights, royalties and payouts, DRM pro and con, hardware/technology, the Google settlement, and how new and established authors can effectively navigate an industry in transition, among other things), and I think most members probably do. If not, they should.

The fact remains that only two relevant workshops were proposed this year. Two. Out of a pool of 10,000 members. Angela’s unfortunately was turned down, for the reason stated by Diane Pershing (a move which I can only assume was, ironically, meant to avoid an uproar from other unapproved publishers wanting a similar platform).

To extrapolate that into some kind of “unwillingness” on RWA’s part to adequately educate its members…I don’t even have words for the stretch that is.

I’m intrigued by the ghettoization of digital-only authors and publishers across a number of writers’ associations, but for someone who’s so disdainful of the subject matter, Ms Hendrix is certainly showing an inordinate level of interest in it.

Pardon, but the disdain isn’t for digital only. It’s for any outfit that masquerades as a publisher when it really isn’t, e.g. vanity and subsidy presses, whether electronic or print. I have the same disdain for folks who pretend to be agents but charge reading fees or bulk mail packages of mss to inappropriate publishers.

And why, pray tell, shouldn’t I be interested in the subject ? It’s my career, and my recent books are out in multiple digital formats. I have a vested interest both in distinguishing good from bad publishers and in how RWA addresses that issue. I’ve been talking to e-published and small press authors for years. I’ve watched some of my friends make it, and some get screwed. I’ve heard the gossip about so-and-so making $30,000 off one e-book, and seen the pitiful earn-outs reported on Show Me the Money, and had friends admit to earning even less. I’ve watched a chapter mate who was contracted by a small publisher sit for literally years waiting for her book to come out in print — “next fall, well, maybe next year” — then have it offered in e-only after the company figured out that was a way to technically fulfill the contract when that was not the deal at all. I’ve watched another friend start an e-publishing house and totally tank it within a year because she had no idea what she was doing and no clue how to edit a book. And I’ve watched Triskelion go under, taking authors rights with them. (Just to be fair, I’ve watched that last happen with NY print publishers, too. It sucks, no matter how big or small the company.) I’ve watched S&S claim they own your books forever.

So, yeah, I’m interested in digital rights and e-publishing, and I have been since the mid-90s when the first e-publishers took their baby steps. From total skeptic, I’ve slowly come around to seeing it as a potential, and now as a legitimate, route to publication *with the right publisher.* The problem is figuring out who, exactly, the right publishers are before you get ripped off or discover you’re merely self-published on someone else’s server.

And yes, I’d love to see some facts and figures, preferably unbiased in either direction. The big guys are (mostly) publicly owned, so you can find out about their financial status, and you can get an idea of author via the advances reported in Publisher’s Weekly. There is no such venue to find out about small and electronic presses. I’d love to see even a fraction of that much transparency in e- and small presses.

I’m hopeful Ms Hendrix will share the basis for this belief (ed: that the final workshop schedule will have something about digital)

Because the final schedule is ALWAYS different from the preliminary schedule, and always has a slightly different balance of workshops in response to varying issues that come up. I’ve seen that every single year I’ve attended RWA. Anyone who’s attended more than two or three times would make the same assumption.

Does this mean a general workshop like the one Theresa was going to be in or the one Angie was in last year or an actual, formal spotlight?

An actual formal spotlight, or one that an be interpreted that way, in other words, a single publisher standing alone and talking mostly about how she does business. I don’t know if that’s what Angela intended, but that may be what it looked like to the Workshop Committee — or what they thought it might look like to other non-accepted publishers who would love to have a similar venue. I dunno. I’m guessing, based on what Pershing said.

—-

I originally stepped into this discussion because of the misleading statements about RWA that were being promulgated and I admit should have kept my comments to that. But the issues are so intertwined that it’s hard to separate them. I crossed the line, and now there’s no going back.

However, there is stopping. And that’s what I’m going to do, not because I don’t want to keep having fun here on the pillory, but because I have a book to write, kids to cuddle, and poison ivy to kill, not necessarily in that order. Bye.

“When the facts are against you, argue the law.”

It is not just a spotlight. If nobody does it before I get home, I’ll post the exact language. I believe, however, that they cannot be on a panel–not just not propose one. The P&PM is online under governance if anyone else wants to look it up.

Give me some numbers, facts, figures, behaviors that can be applied across the board to indicate whether a particular publisher should be considered eligible to present a spotlight at National.

the RWA policies and procedures manual clearly states that a non-RWA eligible publisher or agent may not give a workshop.

Does this mean a general workshop like the one Theresa was going to be in or the one Angie was in last year or an actual, formal spotlight? I don’t think anyone here is arguing ineligible publishers should get spotlights, at least not in this particular post. Angie’s workshop WAS NOT a spotlight, despite the fact she was flying solo; it was a general workshop about digital publishing, wasn’t it?

If this is just about gaming the system (having an author be the one to “propose” the workshop even if the small press industry professional does most of the talking), that’s kind of dumb.

But as of the current regime, it is not possible for Angie to be on a panel.

a) quality and uniformity of author feedback
b) number and quality of authors complaints
c) revenue of said publisher
d) gross sales numbers
e) some minimum years in business bar
f) general structure of the business (how is it managed, how are books acquired, how are they edited)
g) acceptance rates

And if the primary criteria for a publisher to be embraced by RWA is payment of at least $1k in royalties, than ANY list of criteria for epublishers would likely be much more thorough and stringent in its requirements. Because we all know that NY pubs are hardly angels when it comes to how they manage their business and how/whether they look out for authors’ interests. Just because much of the muck stays off the interwebs does not make those presses ideal in their business models. And I think there are many authors right now who are not finding NY particularly inviting, profitable, or loose with advance change. A the current financial crises in some NY pubs cause for concern with RWA? Are board members reconsidering their endorsement of some of those pubs?

As for the allegedly Sisyphean task of evaluating epubs, what does Piers Anthony use as criteria in his preditors and editors list; I would think there’d be some valuable information there for anyone interested in and willing to take a serious look at the digital model. And honestly, if Diane Pershing’s ESPAN statement is the product of years of study of digital, I would politely suggest that maybe it’s time to take a look at some different informational resources. Because even as just a reader some of her comments made absolutely no sense to me, even at the level of bare logic. That doesn’t mean she’s ill-intentioned or a horrible person, just that I found many of her comments befuddling.

I don’t understand the whole structure of the RWA board, but I do find it a bit unsettling that someone from the Board isn’t responding on this thread. That an author who is not a board member is giving some the impression of speaking on their behalf strikes me as a bit of a problem from an organizational ethics point of view. It also makes me wonder if the rogue seminar is threatening to RWA in some way, which would be mightily ironic, since they didn’t seem to want anything to do with it this year (and if RWA IS putting something on their schedule, I would ask why Pershing didn’t say that in her ESPAN article instead of suggesting very strongly that people just aren’t interested in the topic!).

Do you really want an RWA President whose sole background in publishing is that she has five e-books out that have made $150 each?

I want the president of RWA to be an advocate for all writers, whether print published, e-published, or aspiring, and for any member of RWA. A president who dismisses one type of publishing does not have all members’ best interests at heart.

Beyond that, what the hell does it matter if a future RWA president has five e-books or has none? Are you really trying to state that a certain type of publication and experience has more sway over editors, etc? Because that is the one of the most asinine things I’ve ever read.

Why will there be changes in the RWA schedule if all the conference meetings are based on submissions by individuals back in August? Is it possible that RWA is reaching out and trying to form a digital panel (which as I understand is likely to be advertisements for NY publishers as to their NY digital publishing goals and nothing about the digital publishing model)? Isn’t that we have argued before? That RWA should be proactive (see infra Robin’s comments and everyone else’s in previous posts)?

If you know something about RWA’s digital seminars not previously identified, perhaps you can share those with us so RWA attendees can plan accordingly?

If RWA is going to claim that it represents all of its members, and if a large portion of those members are either unpublished or solely digitally published, then doesn’t it have a responsibility to represent those members in a way that demonstrates full understanding of all legitimate business models, including digital (unless you want to claim that publishers like Samhain are NOT legitimate, in which case, the issues on the table are somewhat different and RWA is a very different org than it currently claims to be)?

I never, ever said Samhain (or EC) were not legitimate publishers.

However, the problem is still how to sort out legit from not legit, for purposes of eligibility for RWA events. Everyone in e-publishing complains that the requiring advances is not the right measure. Fine. Then what should be used? How exactly does the organization tell a legitimate e-publisher from one that exists as a vanity for a clique of friends?

And no fair saying “it’s obvious.” Give me some numbers, facts, figures, behaviors that can be applied across the board to indicate whether a particular publisher should be considered eligible to present a spotlight at National. Then find a mass consensus on what you’ve come up with.

Good luck. The Board has been struggling with this for years–multiple boards, consisting of probably a hundred people all together–and no matter what they do, there are people who think they’re too strict and others who think they’re far too loose. The too strict side is especially vocal on this site, but I assure you, if it came up in another context, there would be just as many people shouting to make them far tighter. Even people who are un-published. And probably even a few who have been e-published, say, by Triskelion.

Further, if digital publishers are a bunch of fly-by-nighters who only pay their authors $30 a book why does she ask if there’s

Any chance there will be maybe a .pdf download of facts and figures afterward?

Finally, I’m sure we’re all intrigued by her belief that

when the final conference schedule comes out, we may discover that they have been, at least to some extent.

Is the RWA establishment going to out-rogue the rogues? I’m hopeful Ms Hendrix will share the basis for this belief.

As Kassia pointed out earlier in this thread, whether an author intends to publish in digital format in the future or not, her career, along with those of her fellow authors, will be affected by this new medium. RWA’s unwillingness to acknowledge that by providing even the most basic education to its members is not in their interests.