[HP4GU-FAQ] Opinions on Various Suggestions (not governance-related)

[Amanda Geist]

> DATABASE --- I'm definitely still in favor of creating it, so I think
> Abigail should run with creating it as she suggested.  Though it appears
> that we ought to get MEG's blessing and/or even let one of them create the
> database.

FYI: Pip posted a request to MEG and I believe they're looking at the
current databases, considering clearing out defunct ones, and in general
seem to like the idea and just want to make sure there's room. No final word
yet, though.

> Amanda ----- could you take me through the basics of your volume theory,
and
> how it differs from what Debbie has said above?

I've been thinking about this--I think the merit of having volumes may well
depend on the style in which the FAQ is written. From what I've seen (and I
haven't read them all), there are a couple of methods.

The one I am most familiar with is Snape's, which was written as an essay.
The essay is standalone; even if you don't click on any links, you get the
gist of what was said and postulated. This is one reason I was *not* wanting
to simply update it, because it was a piece of writing in its own right, by
Porphyria (mostly) and I was unwilling to fool with someone else's work.
That's why I suggested a Snape 2, to cover some additional theories, instead
of "working them in." The same problem would apply to adding new theorizing
and such from OoP. So probably, whether we do volumes or not, I'm going to
strongly suggest a Part 2, for Snape and any of the others which are lovely
bits of writing by themselves, even without the embedded links.

The other style of FAQ (this is a broad generalization) is a sort of brief
summary of what a theory was, followed by a list of posts. This style could
very easily be updated with OoP material without losing anything. More on a
new theory? Add the links, possibly with a header "post-OoP." A new theory?
Add it and put the links.

There are several ways of compiling a FAQ. Some will lend themselves to
updating with no pain at all, but some will be an author's work or very well
 done, nicely rounded out as statements of "this is what we thought up to
now" (like Snape's), and a volume-approach might be better for those.

Such are my thoughts. The FAQs *do* have many styles; decide on an
individual basis?

And whether we do volumes or not, are we going to try to identify the
post-OoP links/theories from the pre?

Other stuff:

(1) Melody--I accept on behalf of myself and a totally unconsulted
Porphyria. Dibbies on Melody for help on the Snape FAQ!

(2) Listen, is there a procedure? I mean, for new people, were there "How To
Do A FAQ" steps anywhere? Most of what I did for the existing FAQs was help
read them when they were done; I'd like to understand the whole procedure
from [very good post on the list] to [FAQ].

Sorry I'm ignorant.

~Amanda