META: FAQ and Thread Summaries

[coder at ibm.net]

Writing as list owner:

This is an idea that has been proposed several times to date, I'm looking
for comments:

  1) That the list should have a FAQ and FAQ maintainer.

  2) That <someone> should produce a summary of each thread once it is
done for addition to the list achives.

Observation:  New members to the list are having an increasingly hard time
getting up to speed.  Some never make it.  Some never are overwhelmed or
over-awed and never try.  

Deduced reasons:  Partly it is as trivial as vocabulary (we have evolved
our own terminology and connotation frame), partly it is reference frame
(we all have a fairly decent idea of each other's projects, design goals,
and base approaches), and partly it is sheer discussion history
(scenarios, named topics, etc).  

I'm not interested in launching a "make the list easy for twinks"
campaign.  I am interested in seeing that we don't become a cliqueish
closed system without external inputs, propagation, or feedback.  I'm also
interested in seeing that the (very valuable) ideas and concepts broached
on this list don't die, buried and lost in the archives amid all the other
megabytes of verbiage.  Datum: The list averages over 2Megs of traffic
(not encluding headers) per month.

Notes: Job Lambert has started a slow campaign to summarise some of the
old threads.  Marian has been helping too (got the first summary out!). 
Keegan has a bunch of web-trickery up his sleeve that will help immensely
once I get some time together.  There are other list based projects out
I've forgotten there (sorry) I don't know a whole lot about or just plumb
overlooked.

Specific questions I have:

  1) Should we have a FAQ?

  2) What should be in it?

  3) Who should own it?  Volunteers?

  4) Should we have thread ownership?

  5) Should we have an official thread summariser per thread?

  6) How should the thread summarisier be appointed?  Self-elected? 
Appointed by list owner?  Appointed by thread participants?  Determined by
volume of contribution to thread?

  7) Should any of these participation rules be mandated as part of list
membership?  Should they instead rely on internal feedbacks/measures? 
What?

As tagged, this is a meta thread.  Please discuss it only under the above
subject header.

First thought:

  The FAQ should be an amalgamation of contributions from each current
active member.  Each member would submit a brief text describing their
project or position/campaign/whatever, its high points, base vocabulary,
etc.  These files would then be collected and organised into a
semi-cohesive goo by a FAQ maintainer.

  The FAQ maintainer would be responsible for collecting new text blobs
and obtaining updated to old ones as the list progressed.

Second thought:

  Too much organisation.  Too structured.  This is an amorphous group held
by very tenuous ties.  Don't make the list a pain to be a member of.  The
FAQ maintainer is a thankless job.

Comments please.

--
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at null.net
----------(*)                              Internet: coder at ibm.net
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...