Following up with beat writers

[Josh Bressers]

> > > > 
> > > > 1) as soon as an issue is released, an editor-type changes the date to 
> > > > the next deadline day, and marks every beat as "INCOMPLETE".
> > > > 
> > > > 2) Beats that don't have a writer are marked as "NO WRITER".
> > > > 
> > > > 3) Beats that have a writer but aren't happening that week, for whatever 
> > > > reason, are marked as "NOT HAPPENING".
> > > > 
> > > > 4) Beats that are in progress are marked "IN PROGRESS".
> > > > 
> > > > 5) Beats that are finished are marked "COMPLETE" along with a note to 
> > > > list.
> > > 
> > 
> > Do you expect the beat writers to do this?
> 
> Yes please.  Unless it seems like too much extra burden.  Obviously
> editors would take care of #2 "NO WRITER" but all the other information
> is more easily available to the actual beat writer. So instead of the
> editorial team sending out queries to see what is happening the beat
> writer can just jump straight to a central place to update us on the
> status.
> 

I'd be willing to mark it complete, but I don't plan to mark something in
progress.  That seems like a rather silly and pointless step.

This is one of the problems with new leadership.  It's easy to step in and
start over-engineering a currently working process.  Be mindful of your
changes.  These people are volunteers and too much process will push people
away.

-- 
    JB