I think it's okay, if it's done in moderation. I'm curious to know, if the editor of a photo magazine happens to be a photographer (and there's no reason the editor has to be a photographer), what kind of work he or she does, so if the magazine offers a portfolio or special edition print by the editor occasionally, or if a gallery owner wants to do a solo show of his own work every five years or so, I'm fine with that.
If the magazine becomes a vehicle for the editor/publisher's self-promotion and it starts getting in the way of the content, well, then it starts to look unbecoming of the editor. Now I know that in some cases, magazine editors have been known to write under a pseudonym (or various pseudonyms) because the staff writers just aren't good enough, and they have a shortage of content, but I don't think that's an issue with LensWork.
If people are complaining, Brooks, maybe that's just a sign that it's time to back off a bit. The coherent editorial vision in the selection of the portfolios and high quality of the reproductions makes Lenswork a classy publication. Too much "Brooks and Maureen," though, will turn it into a tacky publication.