Wil Sinclair wrote: If only more people thought that way! Sometimes I feel like I have to explain things to people like they were five because I confused them with technical topics several years ago. People tell me to shut up all the time, and often for the flimsiest of reasons. Like on the advocacy_advisors list it turns out I was "moderated" because I was supposedly off topic, but the moderator who took that unilateral action won't tell me which posts were off topic or how to appeal, and supposedly all of my posts there are going to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for topicality and those deemed topical will be allowed. Even though both of those held for moderation since this happened haven't been posted, and there have been no reasons offered as to why they were not on topic. Back before 2007, it seemed like there was going to be a never-ending growth of editors, but when that turned into a slow decline, none of the Foundation's strategic policy objectives changed. So now we are still trying like mad to get the rights to copy marginally free works that very few people have any interest in, but not lifting a finger to help the typical potential editor, for whom life just keeps getting worse in the current political climate. The Foundation has a lot of resources and a lot of smart people, and I won't re-hash the list of my suggestions now, but soon my associates and I will be able to use the algorithms in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.0500v1.pdf to perform an independent and transparent community support survey of updated strategic objectives in support of community health. Maybe the German Chapter's apparent refocus on supporting editors will help. How about a race: Foundation staff verses community volunteers, to be the first to perform a comprehensive editor support strategy survey?