[MUD-Dev] META: FAQ and Thread Summaries

[Adam Wiggins]

[coder at ibm.net:]
>   1) That the list should have a FAQ and FAQ maintainer.

Nice idea.  The trick here would be to make the FAQ short and readable,
while aquinting the reader with the list enough that they can hop right
in.  Ideally it would also appetize...

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

Urg...with the length of the posts and threads on this list, I don't
find it surprising that we've had as few summaries as we have.  *I*
certainly would not want to attempt it.

> 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.  

I've noticed that most of the new members seem to hop in, post a few
barely-relevant or at the very least uninformed posts, then disappear.
I hadn't thought about it up until now, but I imagine that's it.

> Deduced reasons:  Partly it is as trivial as vocabulary (we have evolved
> our own terminology and connotation frame), partly it is reference frame

People are getting confused by constant references to Bubba? :)

> (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 think that's the most important thing.  As I mentioned above - people
hop in and start talking about a subject that we beat into the ground
just two months ago.  In some cases, it's the same thread - just that
thread has already evolved into a more complex topic.  They, of course,
look at it and come up with the same things that were broached earlier
in the thread.  I tend to ignore those posts, which I suppose doesn't
much help, but I don't feel like repeating myself (or worse, repeating
others).

> 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.

What's the membership like these days?  It seems to me that the number
of regular posters stays about the same; people seem to fade off and others
appear to replace them.

> Specific questions I have:
>   1) Should we have a FAQ?

I think so.  Maybe less a FAQ and more of an orientation guide.  The
Newbie Handbook, as it were.  Maybe we should include a map of Midgaard
and a training dagger as well?

>   2) What should be in it?

Overview rather than Q&A.  Maybe about twenty well-written pages summing
up the attitudes and direction of the list, plus some data on terminology,
past scenarios, and a "Who's Who" (which can be short - a paragraph for
each major poster/project should only come to a couple pages).

>   3) Who should own it?  Volunteers?

I'd be happy to draft the original.  Whether I will feel like maintaining
it is another thing; if it's as small a job as I think it should be
(a few modifications each month as people come and go, threads resolve,
etc) then I could probably do it all myself.

>   4) Should we have thread ownership?

The idea is appealing to me, but I tend to think that it just wouldn't
work.  The mutation rate is too high, and putting responsibility on someone's
shoulders for watching after and attempting to keep such a beast in line
is something I wouldn't wish on anyone.
Plus, I like to go off on tangents, so I imagine this would give me
a lot of trouble...

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

No opinion.  As I said, I won't do it, but if someone volunteers, fine.

>   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?

Ack!  Anything but self-elected seems implausible to me.

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

Hum, I'd hate to see this list get all official.  As it is its much
more like a bunch of friends chatting than scientists exchanging
data through articles and counterarticles in a science journal.

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

Yup.

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

I tend to think of it as a passive thing.  To keep the maintainer from
getting fed up with their duties, I'd make it the responsibility of
anyone who wants the thing updated (their bio added or updated, mainly)
to send new info to the maintainer.  All the maintainer would have to
do is be a frequent reader and make sure that the scenario list was
up to date, and delete or trim bios of inactive members.

> 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.

Right.  I'm in favor of a simple document to aquint newcomers and
reduce pointless contributions from their end.  This would also serve as
a nice update for folks that go away for an extended period and then return
to find themselves out of touch.  I'd be more than happy to be the maintainer
if it was going to work that way.  Hell, I'd even break out the spell-checker
to make the thing legible.