On Friday, I had one of periodic outbursts of righteous explanation on the way things should be in my sphere of apparently little influence. It's goofy, it's frustrating, I get on my high horse to try to right it all on occasion, but such is the way of a power vacuum and no one wanting to make decisions.
Anyway, as a predictable result of a situation that I've been trying to point out for the past 8 months or so, we are preparing to arrange an emergency meeting to address editorial follow through on conference papers and our publisher interest in same (i.e., the person who should be following up to publish things is not, ergo presenters are baffled and offended). I was talking with a quasi-muckety muck about topics for our next upcoming venture, and he was expressing concern on whether these things would be high-quality enough to publish. To which I had to point out that it's really beside the point if your whole system breaks down on the follow-through, isn't it? I don't think he quite got it.
You laugh or you cry, no?