@ Fergus (or H.G., or others):

Is this the best 'thread'/place (assuming only just one such place is all that is needed) for discussion/complaints in a (mostly?) general sense, about issues/process/speed/(etc.[?]) regarding the topic of how a given CVP item (such as Rules Page) goes through the process of being published on CVP site by editor(s)/(aspiring authors), from start to the (hoped for) last step of publication?

For example, I see that there is a 'Graphics' (i.e. has documentation that may apply to any policy discussion) sub-section on this thread's Page (a digression: I tried clicking on that 'Graphics' link, but in my case did not reach that sub-section at all, a minor detail). That would be a good place for you and H.G. to post (possibly copiously) about such stuff on, rather than on the Page for one of my submissions waiting for approval to be published for example. Then note right below that sub-section on Graphics there is a sub-section that includes [pc] 'Shortcuts' documentation; again you and H.G. might prefer to carry on any debate about that here, too.

I may, meanwhile, choose to merely wait out any/most discussion that arises, even if not written here in this thread, on such general policy matters for CVP editor(s)/contributors.

A feeling I have about 'process', though, is that there may be an elephant in the room. A rather humungous one, in fact. It relates to any unsuccessful attempt to get a given item published relatively speedily, if said item is thought by editor(s) even to be just a shade less than 100% clear that the item would be normally be perceived to be virtually flawless. Then, the possible said humungous elephant in the room is: is there a concern that, after a given item by a given author is published, if only with just close to minimal due diligence by editor(s), that said author, after an indefinite length of time just might not visit CVP for quite a while (or perhaps even by chance events, nevermore), and editor(s) in place on CVP at a future point in time desire that a change be made to an item previously published by said author?

Well, if such a (hypothetical!?) scenario does indeed happen now and again, well, is that such a horrific tragedy for CVP site, in a significant number of instances? Even if it seems so, I'd guess there'd typically be so few changes wished of said absent author of a given published item by editor(s) that they just might, you know, make it themselves with relative ease, rather than waiting for it possibly to be done instead, in the fullness of time, by any said (i.e. possibly long absent from CVP site) author? At least that sort of relative quick fix as needed would probably be the case for virtually any items that have been published in, at the least, the last several years (pick a number of years for a rough estimate, if any prefer to), I'd also hazard to guess.

To conclude, especially re: a relatively recent pet peeve of mine (re: CVP) that is still applicable: namely, the timely publication of a given CVP item that seems to be fairly polished being quite possibly heavily hindered by what I'd perceive as mostly 'nitpicking' (that perhaps may be one [relatively small?] reason that CVP site just might be short on the number of Members who have visited recently at this time, judging by the number [over a given period of time] recent CVP Game Courier logs and [for the same period of time] recent Comments on CVP, in terms of total number of Members' names that pertain, excluding any duplication of said names in adding up a total).

Perhaps, for example (though I may underestimate technical difficulties), striving for any necessary perfecting of chess-server-like time controls that smoothly support blitz games (ideally on Game Courier[?]) might be one possibly more productive use of time in terms of popularizing/improving CVP site on the whole in the eyes of at least some potential CVP Members, alone. I know this probably is only a one-person task that might be taken care of in due course, if in fact possible/(not yet perfected), but if I have time, I may later have some suggestion(s) on how editor(s) in general might spend any time that they could possibly free up rather than striving for perfection, a philosophy I have learned brings, over time, diminishing returns, from my career as a chess master (reinforced after reading the words of one chess grandmaster who thought along such lines, in his, as a guideline, rejecting the philosophy of searching doggedly for a perfect move to play at the chess board in a tourney, but to choose instead a relatively reasonable move, sparing himself time and energy, leading frequently to better results in the tourney, compared to those of a typical perfection-seeking rival grandmaster, [if curious, read V. Hort's chapter in an old book titled something like 'How to Open a Chess Game', if you can locate a copy]).

Anyway, as I alluded to much further above, I may well wait for any further discussion on CVP policy between editor(s) to settle down (perhaps even while chewing on some popcorn at times, if I can easily stomach it while reading). Anyway it's past my bedtime. I'd best try to get a significant amount sleep way more often than for several nights of late, lest I eventually need a sanity hearing for that reason, alone. Good night.

Regards, KP