ROLLING ANNOUNCEMENTS

Welcome, members, to Consensus Press!

We want to keep direct emails to a minimum, and will only email you when your input is required to maintain your membership. In the meantime, we'll post rolling announcements and minor updates on this thread.

Stay tuned.

There was a small glitch in sending out "Welcome" emails. Our initial email was sent via mass-BCC, and apparently these were flagged as spam... We resent the welcome email using Squarespace's built-in email service, which appears to have worked. Apologies if anybody received the welcome email twice, and please let us know if there was any trouble with it.

We have our first proposal! It's terrific. (Shout out to proposer: Glacierman)

If the dog had come in when called, I would have gotten it in even sooner!

10 proposals so far. Great diversity, and nothing that is already well-represented in fine press.

20 proposals submitted and counting!

Members will have to choose not only among titles, but among specific versus vague visions. Some proposals are including details down to the typeface on the spine, while others are only specifying the text.

30 proposals submitted and counting!

40 proposals!

We are currently setting up our voting process for October. Our rules don't specify the timeframe for the two rounds of voting, but this is what we're considering:

1st week: Round 1 (up or down voting on proposals)

2nd week: Top ten proposals can be expanded by their proposers (max. 1,000 words); they might solicit feedback and suggestions from other members to help them do so.

3rd week: Top ten proposals (now potentially expanded) are given comments by the Advisory Board.

4th week: Round 2 (ranked choice voting)

Feedback is welcome!

All - a friendly reminder to please your proposals through the website form. Any proposal that is submitted on the LibraryThing forum, but not through the website form, will not stand for consideration during the voting process.

Thank you to everyone who has already submitted a proposal. We look forward to seeing proposals from the rest of the members as well!

50+ proposals submitted!

We'll send an email to the membership on Friday when two weeks remain for proposals.

Interestingly, no two proposals have proposed the same text or even author!

60 proposals submitted!

80+ proposals submitted!

We have some procrastinators (who will be receiving reminder emails this week) but thus far half of the membership have submitted proposals.

48-hour reminder emails are beginning to go out.

Proposals end midnight September 30 / October 1. Our aim is to open the first round of voting on October 7, which will last two weeks. All the details will be sent on an all-membership email that morning.

We are looking for a few members to help test our first round ballot by voting early. Please reach out by direct message on LibraryThing or email through the Consensus Press website if you are willing to A) submit your ballot by Thursday evening and B) give feedback on how the voting process went.

The ballot has been tested and revised slightly for usability. Thank you to our testers. The first round ballot will go out tomorrow morning to all members.

>17 consensuspress: Just to check, if you were a tester do you need to re-do the form from the link in the new ballot email?

>18 Didici: No, testers don't need to submit new ballots.

>20 consensuspress: It seems like a lot of members are being very strategic with their "Yes" votes. I'll be curious to see the overall effect of this selectiveness. It seems possible that we may see proposals in the top ten with less than 50, 40, even 30 percent yeses. The expanded proposals and the second round, then, would be all about persuasion. Excellent!

>23 consensuspress: If this first round wraps up before the 21st, would it be possible to get a jump-start on the next round and give the top 10 more time to craft their proposals?

>24 AMindForeverVoyaging: Voting will remain open until the 21st unless we see 100% turnout before then. If the membership wants to see tentative results before voting ends, however, we can share them.

>26 consensuspress: I am extremely interested in knowing the results, but suspect the better course is to hold off (unless we hit 100%) to ensure late-stage voters cannot vote any more strategically than the early birds.

>27 jordanxn: One thing to note, also, is that members can change their ballot before voting ends. You can do so by clicking "edit response" on the copy of your ballot you received by email. This means that all members could "vote strategically" after seeing initial results.

>28 consensuspress: I saw that was an option - I wasn’t sure if that was permitted. Altering our votes in response to other’s votes seems undesirable to me, but I suppose the consensus should prevail.

>28 consensuspress: I absolutely do not care how others have voted. No political maneuvering for me.

>26 consensuspress: Yes, I meant if 100% was reached before the 21st :) Definitely don't want to cut short any member. With that said, if we did get to 100% fairly soon I think it would make sense to then give members say 2 days to change their votes, and then progress to the next stage.

I was more generous than I thought - 53 YES votes, or 42%. And even with those, there are No votes on titles I would still be fine with. I'm glad other folks were more restrained, however.

Do you have to create a Google account to vote?

>33 punkzip: I don't believe so. I think I did it without signing in.

>33 punkzip: I believe you need an account if you want to be able to edit your ballot after submission, but not to submit it once.

Lots of great proposals. I think it would be fun to see tentative results and be able to revise votes before the top 10 are finalized. It would allow those with enough interest/time to more actively participate in the experiment, while not placing an additional obligation on those who don't.

>26 consensuspress: I am against sharing tentative results since it would allow strategic voting as others have already mentioned.

>37 SebRinelli: Ditto

>43 consensuspress: That's a really solid and promising start!

>44 consensuspress: I’m curious, will we get first round results soon after voting closes?

Or will we have to patiently wait the 4 weeks until proposals are expanded and the advisory board gives their feedback?

>46 NathanOv: I'd expect to wait until the board has finished their review.

>46 NathanOv: >47 Glacierman: Per the schedule above: "A thread for each proposal will be posted on this forum. Discussion is welcome, and proposers may receive assistance in expanding their proposals."

So, at the very least, the top ten will be made known, so that members can discuss and give input as the proposers expand their proposals.

Out of curiosity, roughly how many votes remain to be tabulated?

>48 grifgon: *sigh* Apparently, my reading comprehension is lacking. Must be getting old(er).

>52 consensuspress: For transparency sake, here's how the Advisory Board review will work:

The top fifteen proposals will be shared with the seven Advisory Board members. Each will be given the weekend to flag any proposals they think are "near impossible". If a proposal receives two flags, the proposer will be asked to voluntarily withdraw and (if they do so) the next-up proposal will take its spot. Simple enough!

>52 consensuspress: when is the actual deadline?

>54 jsg1976: October 21 at 11:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time. 12 hours left.

We have ticked up to 113 votes, 90 percent turnout.

>55 consensuspress: What is the exact date we will know the top 10? Monday?

Anticipaaayaytion......it's keeping me waiting.....

>56 punkzip: It depends on how long the Advisory Board takes to do their initial review.

I've received the first round results and passed them along to the Advisory Board. I've flagged two of the top ten proposals as "near impossible" — one for the difficulty of obtaining a notorious copyright and the other for extravagant length. We'll see what the others think!

>59 consensuspress:

Will the total vote results be shared, or just the post-review 10?

It would be so interesting to see the whole lot and examine what is favoured, whether people seem to have considered feasibility with their votes, the tendency towards certain types genres, periods, etc.

>60 grifgon: "I've received the first round results and passed them along to the Advisory Board. I've flagged two of the top ten proposals as "near impossible" — one for the difficulty of obtaining a notorious copyright and the other for extravagant length. We'll see what the others think!"

Interesting - I think we can guess what 2 of the top 10 are then - perhaps the Decameron (at roughly 272K words it is not a lot longer than Ulysses and shorter than Don Quixote - although this would likely be very expensive the recent Curious King Blade Itself was 191K words and 200 GBP for the least expensive state). As for the notoriously difficult copyright, I think this was likely mentioned somewhere here but I don't recall in which thread.

>62 punkzip:

The Decameron should be automatically disqualified as a consideration because there are already a number of fine & private press editions. The Consensus Press does not need to add another - this is not what the Consensus Press should be about.

>62 punkzip: Not the Decameron, actually. Remember that excessive length is relative to the edition size and the number of possible collectors. A 191,000 word letterpress book at £200 is only possible because of a huge edition size (~700 copies, to say nothing of cost cutting elsewhere, such as the small type, buckram binding, or Omnia paper).

Here's some back-of-envelope math to show what I mean. Take just lock-up costs. (These are the primary setup costs for a letterpress printer.) At $100 per lock-up, 4-up printing, and 250 words per page, a 200,000 word text would cost about $20,000 in lock-up fees alone. The Consensus Press edition will have at most 126 copies, and even 100 might be a stretch. So even in the scenario where there's overwhelming enthusiasm for the edition, each copy of that 200,000 word text would bear about $200 in lock-up fees. That's just one of the dozens of costs that would go into the edition.

>63 dlphcoracl: That's up to the members. If they want more of the same, so be it! This initial review is just about flagging texts that are nearly impossible. For example, if the copyright is simply out of reach.

>60 grifgon: It looks like we have another 🚩.

An Advisory Board member with recent firsthand experience trying to obtain permission to reprint the text has said that the author is categorically opposed to limited editions of their work.

>64 grifgon:
Would authors of "excessive length" proposals be given a chance to modify?

>66 booksforreading: Maybe if they are still alive, but seems infeasible given the desired timeline to publish next year ;-)

>66 booksforreading: Good question. Per the process change, the Advisory Board can ask the proposal to voluntarily withdraw their proposal. I suppose if the proposal is "shortenable," a proposer could decline to voluntarily withdraw and instead shorten their proposal.

>67 ultrarightist:
>68 grifgon:
There were quite a few proposals that I felt were going to be too long to be practical/reasonably priced, but I voted yes for them because I was interested in the proposed works. It would be a shame if an interesting and deserving proposal is discarded due to length.
I am glad to hear that authors will be given a chance to adapt to circumstances.

Exciting! Will we be able to know the full results? And the top 10 before/after advisory board edits? Would be curious to know what garnered a lot of enthusiasm, even if deemed “too difficult” by the board.

>70 caszius: I assume so! I think the plan is to publish the full results, including withdrawals and substitutions.

To be clear: The Advisory Board isn't suggesting editions be withdrawn because they are difficult or infeasible, only if they are "near impossible". For example, a proposal might require 100 members to buy a $1,500 book, or take longer than the one year timeline. It's up to the membership if they want to take that risk. We're flagging proposals that are fundamentally nonstarters. For example, if the estate has already said "No!"

>71 grifgon: Sounds good and makes sense. looking forward to it!

I can say that my proposal, The Remains of the Day, is one of the "undoables," as cited in >65 grifgon:. Not hugely surprising to me, nor disappointing, as I'm confident we'll end up with an excellent book that I'll be happy to own. And I'm glad so many of you were supportive of my proposal :)

>74 AMindForeverVoyaging:
Sorry!
Congratulations in any case for such an interesting and deserving proposal!

>74 AMindForeverVoyaging: I voted for Remains of the Day - why is it undoable?

>76 punkzip: Ishiguro's agent said Ishiguro is opposed to limited editions of his works.

>64 grifgon:

If the final result of all this is an edition that has already appeared several times in private press format, it will get a firm “Pass” from me and I will gladly avoid further participation. For me, the purpose and appeal of Consensus Press is to see an interesting and worthy work of literature that has not appeared in fine & private press edition and is unlikely to do so. Absent that, this becomes a waste of time and effort for me.

I don’t think any individual can say at this stage what the “purpose” of the press is; the point of the experiment is to let us determine that purpose by consensus. Definitionally, whatever work is selected will define the purpose of the press. It’s possible the consensus won’t match my personal preferences, but that doesn’t make the experiment a failure.

For myself I'm hoping this becomes an adventurous and experimental press, bring to light lesser known or fully obscure works. If the consensus of the members is another edition of some work already covered by other fine presses, so be it, but I am less likely to sign on to that.

The Advisory Board initial review is wrapping up with no further concerns. Excited to share. This is a GREAT group of proposals.

>81 grifgon: So the list will appear Monday?

>78 dlphcoracl: and >80 Shadekeep: Same for me.

>84 consensuspress:

This is what I had envisaged the Consensus Press being about!!

Every selection that advanced to Round Two has considerable merit and any of these selections would make an outstanding choice. Most important, none of these works have ever found their way into a fine or private press edition and the Consensus Press edition would fill an important void. The range of the selections is also impressive, including science fiction, philosophy and classic fable or folk tale.

To Consensus Press members who submitted suggestions for publication and the Advisory Board - well done! These are exciting and/or timely works to consider for the first Consensus Press edition.

>84 consensuspress: I’m curious - was Labyrinths withdrawn for length issues or rights issues?

>86 jordanxn:

Labyrinths was done in a fine edition by the Folio Society with imaginative, colorful illustrations by Neil Packer in 2007. It was a quarto-size book of 215 pages. Neither length nor copyright should be an issue, I assume.

An interesting list! I do want to note, in case it’s up for a vote/open to consensus opinion, that in general (and for the future) I would prefer ties be adjudicated in the direction of putting more than ten works on the ballot rather than fewer.

>88 ambyrglow: Agreed, adding in the ties might have been better in this case, especially as two of the final choices are the same title (though obviously will be pitched in differing approaches).

>85 dlphcoracl:
This is exactly my thoughts!
I am very happy with the choice of finalists and with the direction this experiment is going.

I will add my applause to the group of nine finalists. There's a lot to be excited about in this list. As for A Canticle for Leibowitz, if we're looking for inspiration this could inspire some ideas (in addition to what the proposers put forth already, of course).

First impression: Ugh.

>86 jordanxn: Rights issues. Two Advisory Board members have recent experience trying to obtain Borges permissions from the Wiley Agency, and the process has been long and inconclusive.

>93 grifgon: Two Advisory Board members have recent experience trying to obtain Borges permissions from the Wiley Agency, and the process has been long and inconclusive.

Dare one say, labyrinthine?

>93 grifgon: I suppose Dreamtigers would have also been withdrawn, therefore it wouldn’t have been a 4 way tie for the last spot in the top 10, rather a 3 way tie. I may be biased, Faulkner was my own entry and the Gogol/Zimakov combination was one of my favorite entries, but including the 3 way tie for a top 12 might’ve been preferable to excluding them resulting in the top 9. Regardless, I am very excited with the top 9, we have some great options to form a consensus on.

>84 consensuspress: Borges was excluded due to rights, what were the other two exclusions due to?
The Name of the Rose is rather long, I could see that being the issue.
The Remains of the Day is shorter than some of the other finalists so I would wager the reasoning is rights.

Besides rights and length, are there any other reasons why a book would be deemed near impossible?

There were a lot of really good submissions, and these are some interesting finalists. I have a few that I'm leaning towards, but ll be curious to see the expanded proposals.

I loved A Canticle for Liebowitz, so I'm not surprised that both submissions advanced. I considered the novel as a proposal but backed off given Easton Press published an edition, and it was also published in Hardcover as part of the Gregg Press Science Fiction series, which, while not known for the finest quality materials and a rather unappealing uniform look, still had a pretty small print run.

>96 Esoterics: The Remains of the Day was my proposal and I was informed that the author is against limited editions of his work.

These options all look fantastic! I'm excited to see what folks have in mind for their detailed proposals. Good work us!

Could we possibly have the proposers’ Librarything handles added to the thread titles for the two Canticles? It would help me keep them straight.

>98 AMindForeverVoyaging: This is very strange as almost every novel from Ishiguro is issued as a limited edition in addition to the normal edition. See for example the latest novel (Klara and the Sun). Maybe it's an exclusive contract or something?

Congrats to the finalists! IMO the list is way too safe for my taste. Still, I see one or two titles that I like, so fingers crossed.

A few questions for the Consensus Cognoscenti on typefaces, in order to further shape proposals. I'm pretty sure most of these were answered before, but it would help to hear those answers again.

1) Is it assumed the book will be letterpress? Or is polymer press an option?
2) If letterpress isn't the default, should we specify it if we want that approach?
3) What typefaces should we chose from? I assume there is a much more narrow set of choices for letterpress than polymer, unless type is going to be cast for this.

Thanks!

>102 Shadekeep: I can answer these!

1. The book must be letterpress, as stated on the Consensus Press website. Photopolymer can be used to make letterpress plates, so it is letterpress. Some makers (and very respected ones, like Tallone) think of polymer as less "authentic" than metal, but nobody disputes that it's letterpress. Most "big" letterpress books these days use polymer — all of Thornwillow's books, for example.

2. Letterpress is a must.

3. As a general recommendation, I'd stick with typefaces that have been used in the past 20 years by a fine/private press. Garamond, Centaur, Weiss, Perpetual, Baskerville, Joanna, etc.

By the way, I think it's safe to assume that unless one of the shortest proposals is chosen, the book will be printed with polymer plates. Using hand-set or monotype or linotype versus polymer would double the price and halve the number of printers who could be hired for it.

The finalist are all wonderful ideas, and it is very difficult to choose between them.
May I suggest that, rather than having another poll for titles next year, that the seven finalists not chosen this year (excluding the duplicate A Canticle for Leibowitz) be the titles published in future years, and only when this pool of ideas is exhausted should another poll for more titles be held.

>103 grifgon: As someone who vastly prefers handset type over plates, I’m reluctant about the idea of handset type purely on commission with all of the design decisions made ahead of time.

If, on the other hand, a printer like James Freemantle were particularly excited about one of the proposals and open to taking it on, I’d leave most of the printing decisions up to them.

>104 wcarter: I certainly hope that’s not how the Press proceeds! If so, I’m afraid I’ll have to step away sooner rather than later.

>104 wcarter:

I am not in favor of that idea. It will make Consensus Press stale. People change, reading tastes and preferences change. The yearly screening and voting mechanism will better reflect the membership in a real-time manner.

>103 grifgon: Thanks kindly! I was fairly certain letterpress was right there in the charter, but wanted to get clarity, as well as on polymer plate. I'm fine with the approach as stated.

I've mentioned Uncial in my proposal as the typeface, but do have concerns it may be too archaic and hard-reading for folks. If I had to go with a more standard typeface, I'd love to use Doves. Otherwise Garamond or Centaur is probably ideal. And I'm still taking suggestions for more "reader friendly" Irish-styled typefaces in my thread!

>104 wcarter: Among other reasons people have brought up to oppose this, copyright accessibility changes. Proposals removed for copyright reasons this year might have rights available five years from now; proposals whose rights were judged available this year might have estates locked in internal legal battles five years from now. I don’t want the next ten years of the press decided on the basis of today’s copyright landscape.

>104 wcarter: (& >106 jordanxn:, >107 dlphcoracl:)
I have been appreciating this argument from both sides in the past month.

Is it possible, and perhaps favorable, that any finalists from this year might be allowed to reenter their initial proposals into the 1st Round pool next year "in addition" to entering another new proposal?

That way:

(1) To >104 wcarter:'s point, we would retain the wonderful value of the ideas from the process this year;

(2) To >107 dlphcoracl:'s point, the Press would not become stale, since next year's voting choices would still be reflective of what the memberships wants at that future point in time; and

(3) To the point of fairness, this years finalist members wouldn't be at any disadvantage for reentering their same idea.

I mention the disadvantage because presumably next year any member could reenter an identical proposal (unless Consensus Press adds a rule against it). Some might argue that any member who was made it to Round Two this year and didn't win would be stupid not to reenter a near identical proposal since we all know it's favorable. If they did that though, then they would be missing out on the opportunity to get new creative juices flowing.

Keep in mind that these finalists are the same people who got the Oracle to write:

>85 dlphcoracl:"Every selection that advanced to Round Two has considerable merit and any of these selections would make an outstanding choice."

In summary, my suggestion is that, except for the person with the final winning proposal for 2022, finalists from this year should have the option to voluntarily reenter their 2022 proposals into Round One in 2023 in addition to submitting a new proposal for 2023.

I believe that it would be acceptable for the reentry to be modified from the original 2022 Round One submission based on the knowledge gained in the interim. The finalists are doing extra research to make a more polished Round Two proposal for 2022 and that's work they should be able to take full advantage of. There's no point in wasting those efforts. The selected work must obviously remain the same for any freebie 2023 entry, but the details can be modified as the proposer sees fit.

I further believe that this privilege of an extra freebie entry should only be given to the 2022 finalists. Anyone else wanting to submit a replicate proposal next year could do so, but that would account for that proposer's entry slot.

I encourage comments. If the concept seems amenable, then perhaps we put it to a vote.

>110 Tuna_Melon: I second this proposal

>111 ultrarightist: As do I.

>110 Tuna_Melon: A question I have is what about those proposals that finished in the top 10 in the 1st round voting but then were deemed near-impossible by the Advisory Council? Would those proposers be allowed to submit two new proposals for 2023? I am speaking a bit selfishly as I fall in this group :)

I was thinking along the same lines as >104 wcarter: earlier and my take is that perhaps we could consider producing more than one book a year. I know I am getting ahead of myself. I definitely want to see the process of this first book all the way through and see how it all goes. I'm only saying, after that point, if we're pleased with how it went and if there are other fleshed-out proposals from this group of finalists (or other groups in future years) that we are very excited about, and if there is strong sentiment among the members to do so, that we might try to bring more than one proposal to fruition. That's a lot of ifs, I know :) But I also don't see why it couldn't happen, in theory ... down the road.

>113 AMindForeverVoyaging: As is the precursor to everything here, Consensus would have the final say. If it were up to me, I'd say that no you would not get to submit two new proposals next year.

The original rationale was that for the best interest of the Press, a proposal that is known to hold merit should be granted extended life. Additionally, the proposer should not be at a disadvantage because of this. If your proposal is still dead in the water next year, you should consider proposing something different. Thus, you still get an opportunity to make your proposal as is the right of maintaining membership...thus you're not at a disadvantage. (...and on a personal note, I'd look forward to another insightful proposal from you or anyone who has already shown to have gained the favor of the Consensus.)

However, I would caveat the above no with the following. If the circumstances change by next year such that there is reason to believe that a currently (in 2022) infeasible "top 10" proposal could be feasible (in 2023), then yes you should indeed have the opportunity to resubmit it next year as a freebie, like each other finalist.

I think from a bookkeeping perspective, it makes sense that these freebies would only be coming from the previous year (singular). If your proposal doesn't appear feasible next year, but it does in the far future, say five years from now, then if you're still passionate about the book, you could submit it as your regular membership proposal for that given year.

--- --- ---

If this becomes a rule...
In terms of what "reason to believe" means, I would suggest you consult the advisory board while Round One proposals are open to ask for their input. However, even if you desperately wanted to get your freebie in irrespective of their inputs, if your proposal is still infeasible, the nature of the voting system should eliminate the possibility of its moving into Round Two next year.

Likely if your nearly identical proposal, your freebie, were to appear again next year, the advisory board could comment while Round One voting is open and presumably the membership would simply not vote it into Round Two. If it somehow did get voted into Round Two and was still infeasible, shame on the Consensus, but also no harm done. It would just be another matter of applying the same rules as we're currently doing. You could voluntarily remove it and then potentially be eligible with it as a freebie for the following 2024 edition. I expect the Consensus wouldn't like to do this ad infinitum, but again, no harm; it would just be a bizarre form of bookkeeping as a way to keep your book in mind. As mentioned earlier, it may be easier to just let it fall to the wayside until it really does become feasible in the future (if that's ever the case) and then have it be your regular submission for that given year.

Note: I tried to write this in a general way to encompass various possibilities why something might become feasible for one of many reasons. As we understand it to date, any of the following three reasons might be possible reasons for reconsideration in the future (I'm summarizing what I've read previously from other posters):

(1) A rights holder has a change of opinion so it may be worth pursuing the inquiry about rights. [relates to rights]

(2) A book moves into the public domain. [relates to rights]

(3) The Press's theoretical limits change such that a book of significant length seems more plausible. [relates to length]

--- --- ---

TLDR: (which probably should've been at the beginning)
No, I do not think you should be able to submit two new proposals next year.
Yes, I do think you should be able to have your existing (2022) proposal resubmitted as a freebie. (With the caveat that you should probably consider using good judgment as to its feasibility in 2023)

I think I prefer the model of one proposal per member. There is a simplicity and equality to it that I find appealing. Folks can certainly resubmit entries, but it is not as if there is a shortage of potentially wonderful candidates for the second book even if none of the shortlist is re-entered for a few years.

>114 Tuna_Melon: I agree with what you wrote

>114 Tuna_Melon: I like this idea. I also agree with >113 AMindForeverVoyaging: that the optimal solution is to produce more than one book per year at some point, but baby steps for now.

>110 Tuna_Melon: finalist members wouldn't be at any disadvantage for reentering their same idea

How would they be at a disadvantage if they re-enter the same book? Starting out with a proven popular choice gives them higher than average chances of making it to the top 10 again, which clearly puts them at advantage, not disadvantage. Furthermore, they have a chance to source feedback, analyze the results of the previous run and refine their entries to better fit the demand (e.g. tweak production values to result in a cheaper product if the members thought the previous proposal was a little too expensive/extravagant, or be more flexible with binding materials if other members expressed that they do not buy into your design vision etc.), which puts them into further advantage. The finalists are at a great ADVANTAGE if they re-enter the same book.

>118 elladan0891: Except returning proposals are also battling the novelty effect, in which something new can have more appeal than something which has already been seen (and to a degree rejected).

>119 Shadekeep: Possibly, but they still have far greater chances to make it to the top 10 again than an average member with a new proposal. They're clearly at advantage when resubmitting.

>120 elladan0891: The experiment would have to be run to really know how it would turn out. Perhaps a compromise approach could be made, in which the top 10 new proposals are included in the final round (even if they trail behind some repeats), alongside any repeats which make it into the 10 highest voted? Though this could theoretically result in a final round with 19 candidates, if the 9 repeats completely dominate the top ten slots.

>121 Shadekeep:
Personally, I don't think we need to artificially prop up any proposals. Just let the members vote and pick their top 10, whether new or old. If they want an old entry, they'll vote for it again. If they think some new proposal is more attractive - so be it.

I don't see why a mere fact of getting into top 10 once should guarantee publication or a shower of extra privileges. If your proposal didn't win but, say, was in the top 3 and was just a few votes away from winning, you know you have a very good proposal and have high chances at another go. If your proposal turn out to take the last place by a large margin, you should probably think twice whether you want to resubmit it and I don't see why we should be propping it up in any way.

Like in sports, if you finish 10th or even take silver in Olympics, the World Cup or whatever, you're not guaranteed a spot in the next Olympics/World Cup and you should still compete for qualification next time around. This is only fair. And whether you choose the same training regimen and strategy for next qualification is up to you.

>122 elladan0891: Sorry, I think we're talking at cross-purposes, or at least I may have misunderstood your point. Are you saying that resubmissions are fine but they should count as the submitter's one proposal? If so, then yes, there would be no need for the complications I have added in order to compensate for them. My suggestions were to offset any advantage of resubmission alongside a second proposal from the same submitter. If everyone gets one shot, new or resubmission, then a straight top-ten makes more sense.

I prefer to keep it simple, one proposal per member each year. Resubmit your old proposal if you wish. It’s not like there was a huge gap in votes between the top ten and the rest of the pack. The cut off ended up being 50 votes but there were four choices with 49 votes (although one of them would have been tossed for rights issues) and multiple votes for 48 votes. I assume there will be attrition in membership and I also assume we’ll come up with a plan to allow new members so a new first round makes a lot of sense to me. I hate the idea of this round determining the future of the press for the next five years. Note, I voted for a majority of the top nine.

>124 kdweber: I agree with your sentiment. Hopefully there would be some fresh ideas from new members, plus I'm sure we all have many ideas knocking around in our heads. So I think we should have each publishing year be a fresh start and let things fall as they may. At least for next year, and then we can reevaluate if need be.

I’ll also note that the other issue with hanging onto winning proposals by default is that at this point we don’t yet have pricing estimates. It’s possible enthusiasm for some proposals will evaporate once the cost becomes clear.

>125 AMindForeverVoyaging: Now what I would love to see in the future is management collecting interest on any particularly exciting runners-up and considering publishing them as "extra" titles. I don't know if we'll ever grow to have that capacity, though.

>127 NathanOv: Exactly. That was my sentiment in >113 AMindForeverVoyaging: but we certainly need to follow the process with this first book all the way through, and especially make sure that enough people will actually pony up for this book when it comes time to open wallets.

>128 AMindForeverVoyaging: Hear hear.

If we can successfully conceive, fund, and produce a first edition, then the sky's the limit for Consensus Press, and the process/rules can be changed by the membership.

One thing which I'd like to point out: There's been some comments along the lines that "Consensus Press' first edition should be ambitious (i.e. Big, Expensive, Luxurious)." I think that the experiment itself is ambitious, and that anything published by consensus would be a major accomplishment. As such, I'd advise members to strongly consider feasibility as their first or second criteria when voting in the second round.

>129 grifgon: No, no, the first book should be raw decadence and come with its own table like Taschen's Helmut Newton tome. Go big or go home. 😜

>129 grifgon: I don't know how to go about this in a tactful way, but a poll on member's budgets or preferred price range could be worth running before the second round of voting, or even before long proposals are finalized.

I'd imagine this would give everyone a better idea of how big they should be dreaming.

>131 NathanOv: A reasonable suggestion. Could be as simple as an inline vote here "Would you be willing to pay more than $xxx for the book?" (for whatever threshold amount seems likely).

>124 kdweber: Agree wholeheartedly.

>131 NathanOv: To maximize purchasing/participation, I would simply suggest keeping proposals to the low end of pricing w/o sacrificing quality. Participation will drop off as the price goes up, resulting in an elite press, but that is not the intention, as I read it.

>132 Shadekeep: If we could do 3, I'd ask if members would be willing to pay more than $200, $500 and $1000.

>133 Glacierman: The problem with that is my guess is that a majority of members fall in the $500-$1000 range. However, I wouldn't want more than a handful of members to be priced out just because the majority vote for an expensive proposal. I like seeing a wide range of scope to the proposals though.

>134 NathanOv: If that is your guess, then I am in the wrong church! I should be in the one on the other side of the tracks.

>135 Glacierman: I could be totally wrong! Of course only a fraction of members are engaging here, but from the previous publications that I've seen referenced, and the purchases I've seen FP forum members mention in the past, that seems to be the most common range.

EDIT: And now that I think of it, the fact that members do buy a lot of books in that range doesn't mean they would spend that high on the Consensus Press edition. So the "preferred price range" poll would be even more helpful in that regard.

>124 kdweber: same.

No changes needed to the existing rules for this to work, I think.

Just resubmit your proposal if you want another try.

I also favor remaining at a relatively leisurely pace of release, especially since maintaining membership obligates purchases and some of these books might end up being pricey, based on the proposals we have seen. One per year seems about right.

I think a poll about price(s) would be perfectly fine! If somebody wants to post one here, that's great information for members to have as they vote in the second round.

I also think that ranked choice voting will do a good job of moderating to a price that is widely accessible. Presumably, if a member can't get a $1,000 book, they'd rank it last. However, I don't see any member ranking a book first because it's expensive.

I think quite a few members will likely order the edition primarily in support of the experiment and to retain their membership. To say the quiet part out loud, I do think that any Consensus Press edition will easily resell. The edition will be offered only to members, so the hundreds of non-member collectors out there who want one can only get one by buying it off a member. Also, since the edition will be priced as a not-for-profit, reselling for more probably won't be that hard.

>134 NathanOv: >138 grifgon: Sounds good, here we go!

Poll moved below, had to split into separate posts.

Man, I am really good at simultaneously cross-posting these days!

>141 Shadekeep: Oops, I can delete mine before anyone responds! Looks like you just need to fix your numbers

Consensus Press Pricing Poll

Poll moved to here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/345393#n7961994

Removed, see above.

Removed, see above.

>123 Shadekeep: Right, that's what I meant - everyone gets one shot, and people are free to decide whether they want to refine their old proposal and resubmit or come up with something new.

>145 Shadekeep: >144 Shadekeep: >143 Shadekeep: Not to be a total pain in the tosh, but could I suggest posting these in their own thread? I think they may get buried here, and will only receive responses from the hardcore lurkers and not the majority of members who seem to pop in once every few days or so. It's an important question, so it'd be good to have as many responses as possible.

EDIT: Oh boy, now I see Nathan did that but deleted them 😂

>147 grifgon: I worried about that too. NathanOv, do you want to transfer the questions back into your thread and we'll use that? I'm sure the few voters here can revote. I'll take these off here if so.

>146 elladan0891: Fair enough then, I think that's fine as well.

I do understand the bittersweetness that there are several good proposals on hand here and only one can be done, but life is full of difficult choices. And anyone who is really wed to their proposal can bring it around again.

>147 grifgon: >148 Shadekeep: Ha, will do! I deferred to Shadekeep since I wasn't sure a separate thread was okay or not.

EDIT: Done! If members who already voted wouldn't mind recasting here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/345393#n7961949

>150 NathanOv: Many thanks, I'll shut down the questions here.

Where one can see total results for all proposals?

>152 booksforreading: The "Members Area" of the Consensus Press website.

>108 Shadekeep: I think an uncial would look handsome, and I honestly feel them to be easy to read. Victor Hammer's books set in uncial are breathtaking!

>154 ChestnutPress: That's a good point, and Victor Hammer did do brilliant work on Uncial. His revised face Neue Hammer Unziale is especially pleasing. I will include those in the typeface options in my revised proposal, thanks!

>155 Shadekeep: My pleasure!

In the interest of transparency, here's how the Advisory Board comments are going to work:

This weekend, Reed will send me the expanded proposals. I'm going to send them to David, James, Megan, Mark, Jason, and Bradley with a form to fill out. The form will ask, for each proposal:

1. Do you have any concerns about the feasibility of implementing this proposal?

2. What do you estimate the cost of producing 80 copies of this edition to be?

3. Do you have any further comments to share with the members as they vote?

I won't fill out the form myself, but will summarize the others' responses for each edition. The summary will be attached to each proposal on the ballot. Reading ~9,000 words for the ballot is already quite a bit, so we'll use summaries, but the full form responses by individual Advisory Board members will also be made available off-ballot for those interested in diving deeper.

For the cost estimate (which I expect is the piece which collectors will be most interested in) we need an anchor of some number. Thus, 80 copies, which would assume that 2/3 of the current membership will follow through and order the edition. In terms of summarizing the cost estimates provided by the six other Advisory Board members, I'll do this Olympics style – drop the high and the low and use the remainder as a range. Obviously this is an imperfect process, but I think it's about as good as we're going to get until management can actual get quotes and contracts done. I think "$300 to $600" versus "$1,200 to $2,000" is still useful information, even if the ranges themselves are rather large.

Happy to hear feedback before the weekend, if anybody thinks this process could be improved.

>159 grifgon: "I think "$300 to $600" versus "$1,200 to $2,000" is still useful information, even if the ranges themselves are rather large"

Very much agreed. I think each of us is under strong presumption to buy; otherwise, why join the group? However, that is not absolute. So for me, if Canticle for Leibowitz wins, and the price range is $300-$600, then I would buy it (with admittedly muted enthusiasm) regardless of where it falls in that range, but if the range is $1.2K-$2K, then I would not buy it.

>160 ultrarightist: Same here. I would purchase any of the proposals in the lower price range, but only a select number of them in the upper.

>164 consensuspress: Received!

A huge 👏 👏 👏 BRAVO!!! 👏 👏 👏 to the proposers and everybody who contributed to shaping the proposals here.

I think just about everybody would agree that this will be an excellent second round ballot.

I just saw a second ballot flutter across my inbox. A few broad notes on the Advisory Board comments:

1. Hats off to the nine proposers! It's quite impressive that none of proposals received outright negative recommendations! Save for one of the Canticles (for which the vision is so grand that it seems the financing just won't work) no proposal received more than a small degree of trepidation. I think that's pretty astounding. My summaries of the board comments and discussion are pretty deadpan, so I want to express in addition to their nitpicking and disinterested skepticism that these proposals are really quite wonderful.

2. Several of the advisors emphasized that it's difficult to provide cost estimates. I tried to keep the cost estimate ranges fairly broad to account for this uncertainty, but it's worth noting again nevertheless.

3. In some cases, a detail or two in the proposal are problematic. When these were identified, we approached the rest of the proposal assuming the problematic detail was flexible rather than absolute.

4. Privately, the board members expressed which proposal was their "favorite," and no two were the same......... GOOD LUCK!

>168 consensuspress: I don’t understand your distribution. You list 23 votes in 8 categories but there are 25 votes in 9 categories.

>169 kdweber: Originally missing another "2"; edited now to be current.

>172 consensuspress: If the last place proposal in any given tabulation is a tie between multiple proposals, are 2nd place choices for each of them redistributed, or only one? If only one, how is that proposal selected? Randomly?

>173 ultrarightist: If there is a tie for last place, the proposal with fewer 2nd choice votes is eliminated.

>175 consensuspress: Has the same title led from the start of the count? There certainly seems to be a clear favorite. I love that every title has received every ranking.

>175 consensuspress: >176 kdweber: I'll be curious to know whether the (now) definitive lead for one proposal turns out to be fleeting. Ranked choice voting allows for "vote clustering" that can make for deceptive early leads. The leading proposal still has fewer than a third of the 1st choice votes, and if the other votes cluster (for example, if many members ranked the Canticles 1st and 2nd), it could easily be overtaken. Per Bob Dylan:

The order is rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'

>177 grifgon:. That’s a good point. In one of my book clubs we rank the book after our discussion and it’s not uncommon to end up with a binomial distribution.

>176 kdweber: Unsure. I'm taking the data unconnected to the proposals.

>177 grifgon: >178 kdweber: The distribution of 1st 2nd and 3rd Choice votes combined is: 37, 36, 30, 28, 22, 19, 18, 15, 5. It's a much tighter race than the 1st Choice votes alone would make it seem, especially if the 1st Choice leader is polarizing.

The waiting.......

Looks like we have a runaway favorite. I’m very curious to see the results because I don’t think I could pick out a single submission as a clear favorite.

>185 Esoterics: I have a clear top three in my mind but like you I'm quite surprised that the community seems to have coalesced around one title. Looking forward to finding out what it is

>186 gmacaree: My hunch is Flowers for Algernon – great text, interesting design ideas and among the lowest price ranges of all proposals. But could be totally off!

>187 BorisG: Flowers for Algernon was not my first choice - or even in my top 3 - but I would not be unhappy if it won and would not hesitate to purchase it.

>186 gmacaree: My gut feeling is that the front-runner is still Canticle, with the later ballots that skew so heavily towards it perhaps being from those not as involved in the forum or in-tune to the voting process.

That could perhaps also explain why the frontrunner didn't do so well in the sample tabulation, with cost-averse voters being encouraged to list it last on their ballots.

EDIT: Ha, I was way off! Spot on with the Algernon guess, everyone.

I have my suspicions about what might be leading (fueled by a comment from grifgon earlier), but will stay shtum and see how it plays out. Hoping to be pleasantly surprised!

And I was right. Figured mine would be very low since it only got into the running due to disqualifications. Interesting though that my top three picks are in the 2-4 slots. It's almost like the "interesting and novel" titles triggered vote splits, while the safer choice didn't really have competition.

>191 Shadekeep: It looks to me like the Sci-Fi vote went overwhelmingly to "Flowers" while the Non-Sci-Fi vote was split pretty evenly among six different proposals, all of texts written before 1700. I actually wouldn't feel too confident if I were "Flowers"... it all depends on how much cross-appeal it has.

>192 grifgon: If my quick mental math is accurate, Algernon has a chance at breaking the 50% threshold in round 4, while no other proposal has a chance at winning until round 7.

>193 NathanOv: Looks like of the eight votes for "On the Shortness of Life" only one went to "Flowers". Curious to see if that ratio continues and, if so, what it would mean.

Shout out to Máel Dúin which survived two consecutive ties! It must have had quite a few 2nd Choice votes.

>194 grifgon: Right, it looks like no winner until at least round 5 now, and Algernon would need over 60% of the next two round votes for that to happen.

Enough votes will be redistributed by round 7 though to make it anyone's game if Algernon doesn't win by then.

>196 NathanOv: I really like ranked choice voting because whatever wins, it will clearly be well-deserved.

Frankly, as well-considered as the Canticles were (bravo to the proposers!) I'm relieved they're out, as I think they stood the greatest chance of risking CP's successful fulfillment of the first edition. Everything that remains seems completely doable.