[The text below is copied from post # 253 on this conversation in which Jodan and GTBacchus discuss possible roles for the UG Editors. My purpose for creating a separate entry is to prevent this subject from getting lost in that thread titled "Why is the AWW still such a dead-end?" -- a thread which runs to 430+ messages, on which I was already so lost that I asked "which thread was the one where you talked about the editors' roles?"]

"I believe that the next thing on the timeline is to clearly define the role(s) of the UG Editors, before attempting to elect them. Except on points that are currently up for a vote, I don't see any reason why we can't begin to hammer out those roles while we wait for the calendar to turn over seven more times. Jodan posted a list of duties, which I've just been dividing up into categories. Here, check it out:"

Figureheads/Representatives

Ambassadors to the Italics
Raise Awareness
Announce "Progress Report" type thing announcements, perhaps semiregularly in the post.

Administrators/Managers

Manage Miners
Miners Mailing List
Manage the Miner and UG pages
Micromanage AWW/TURF/APR/URF
Maintain link and list pages (Such as list of UG miners)
Count and Manage votes on future issues and on Miner recommendation
Maintain miner waiting list/miner applications
Maintain Miner group

Editors

Veto/Accept UG entries
Sub entries
Encourage Entry Flow
Maintain unofficial archives
Maintain entry copy flow
Final polish after subbing (House Rules sorts of things, swearing etc)
Send entries in batches to italics

I wasn't sure where to put:
Limit each other's power

"All this is is a very partial digestion of Jodan's list. Comments, questions, suggestions, direction, enlightenment? Coffee, tea? Does anyone else fancy the idea of three UG Editors in charge of one set of tasks each, but able to be vetoed by both of the other 2, if necessary?"

[Don't be afraid to suggest other duties or roles if you think something is missing.]