Editing is best kept distinct from layout and production tasks. If the editor is obliged to worry unduly about production/distribution problems, the shift from orderly reproduction to "higher order" configurations does not take place.
Is editorial intervention appropriate on censorship grounds? We have found that misuse of the messaging process is unlikely to be a significant editorial concern in most cases /1 (see also Abuse and Misuse / C1).
It is important to be sensitive to the language frustrations in handling the communications. Such considerations may affect editorial decisions. Minority language groups easily build up and feed resentments if they feel that they are being sidetracked. The preferences or suspicion of the organisers can also, perhaps quite unintentionally, easily downplay the "communications holes" and in ways which damage its effectiveness of the interactive process.
Editorial intervention can do much to shift the role of the interactive Bulletin beyond simple "unilateral" or "bilateral" messaging, and so raise the level of dialogue into new spaces. Essentially the editorial goal should be facilitation of fruitful interaction, the building on earlier messages and convergence on joint conclusions/actions, etc. (see also Maturing the Process / E12; Mapping / E13)
It seems that if messages do not fulfil the sender's expectations, subsequent messaging may deteriorate. This is a challenge to the editors to intervene in the messaging process so that messages reinforce each other (see Maturing the Process / E12)
The editors could also take a more active role, inviting or generating other texts, so that the Bulletin also has a newsletter function, or is used for texts of draft recommendations, etc. Of course, special selections and publications can also be compiled (see Database Products / C2).