As you read, please keep in mind that it's a draft. Talks about it so far have already led to some changes. The terms, for example, are going to be for 12 months rather than the draft's 18.
The original draft is up at the moment just so everybody is starting from the same place. But as this process goes on revised versions will go up so that - like little Karl Popper disciples - we're arguing about the best current model. The second draft (with the changed term limits and a few other things) should be up this weekend. And revised drafts will keep going up over the next few weeks with posts outlining what's been changed.
Because it's so long, I think it's worth flagging some of the hot-spots - the points that really need to be debated. To begin with, I think the focus should be on the editorial board.
- How many people should be on it? The current draft has eight editors. Is this a good number?
- Should the editors have prescribed powers and if so what should they be? The current draft has three prescribed roles. Is this enough, is this too much?
- Should the board be hierarchical? The current draft is, with a veto vote given to the Editor-in-Chief. Is this helpful, is it unhelpful?
I think that's plenty to start with, but in time the election process and the transition from the current model to the new model will need to be discussed.
And of course if you have other ideas, write in.
