Just the FAQs....

[haandruss@xxxxxxx (Harvey A. Andruss, III)]

>The problem I see with the FAQ model that Harv proposed is that there was a
>significant amount of opinion contained in the text. It seems to me that an
>FAQ should be mostly factual or at least a consensus since it'll be of most
>use to beginners.

Oops -- it wasn't my 'proposal' :) -- it was a re-post based on what I
thought Randy L. was referring to as 'already done' and it was he who used
the words 'pretty good'.  Nonethless, my own position on FAQs is that
'anything' (any outline, etc.) is better than 'nothing' (current status :),
that they are 'never perfect', but get more so with each update; if people
have the time and the inclination to submit, append or revise, then 'more
power to them'. Whenever there's a committee, doing it right the first time
is next to impossible.

I've made two little submissions (this one and that overblow one) to our
volunteer editor, Michael Bower (bowerm@xxxxxxxx), based on the work of
other people (I either like to give credit to other people, or steal
shamelessly, you decide...;), but I would request that those interested
start submitting to him off-line and let's see what he comes up with.  Pick
a subject and maybe announce it to the list, then others can collaborate if
they feel like it.. Maybe Michael can give us an update and a timetable
when he thinks things are going to wrap up.  No hurry or pressure.  An
interim FAQ could start showing up on the Harmonigopher (presumes Chris and
Michael agree).  Just 2 cent from another nose-pierced, live-rodent eating,
harp geek (Ozzie Osborne, eat your heart out -- P.I. again :)  Sorry for
the thread extention Richard...and bet you really want to see that GIF now,
Tim  :)

Opinions are also 'good' especially if the format allows for a by-line (in
this case it was Matt Brand), and 'multiple submissions' on the same topic
(different spin on each).  For purposes of brevity, Michael or other
editors amoung us may try to resolve/reduce such 'issues', but that can
become a major effort in and of itself, so I'm inclined to lean toward one
or two core articles per topic and appendices for related threads.

One protocol might be that when the thing is done, and each of us reads it,
if we don't like something, we submit another article to 'add to' or to
'take the place of' it. Then vote (??) or maybe Michael just makes the
call.  Enough from Confusion Man. Can't lead, won't follow, so gettin' out
of the way (as I trip down the stairs...;)

Regards,                  haandruss@xxxxxxx
Harv                      *Opinions my own*