So, after many online and offline discussions, it seems that the issue here is quite complicated. As we already have the institutional understanding and commitment to our own infrastructure, it would be hard to transition to something else. (nay, perhaps impossible) Yet, we are still faced with the problem that our volunteers need to advance their career and be intellectually engaged with their profession.
I've been musing on this a great deal, and last night an idea came to me- what if we emphasized innovative approaches? That is, we asked that the Publications/Communications Committee be properly concerned with assisting with innovative publication efforts, but that as something moves towards regularization we seek to shift responsibility.
An after-the-fact example of this would be the Bib. Standards Committee who continues to successfully produce excellent publications without our assistance. They know how to interface with their publisher and the methods, so their process of publishing qua publishing is essentially regularized, thus we have no role.
If we choose to emphasize innovative approaches then we have some guidance as to what is appropriate for the committee to take on.
What do people think?