Organization and FAQ Priorities

[derannimer]

--- "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at comcast.net> wrote:
> Yup, progress reports are good, and I like the Team
> Captain (or Co-
> Captain) concept, too.

> >snip<

> So how about this model?  We have, say, four teams
> working on four 
> FPs.  When team members want to communicate about
> anything concerning 
> their FP, they do so here in plain view on the FAQ
> list.  Posting 
> outlines, drafts, whatever.  
> 
> But each team would have a name.  (Maybe even
> Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, 
> Slytherin and Gryffindor.)  When they post about
> their team's work, 
> they could use a prefix.  So if I were on Slytherin,
> and I wanted to 
> ask confer with my teammates Ali, Tom and Derannimer
> about an outline 
> I had drafted for the Harry FP, then I'd post under
> a subject 
> header:  "SLYTHERIN:  Harry FP Rulebreaking
> Outline."
> 
> That way, anyone with time to read everything can do
> so.  Those 
> without time can easily skip based on the prefixes
> and just keep up 
> with what their own team is doing.  Those who aren't
> moving very fast 
> will see that other teams are working like house
> elves.  And we'll be 
> able to send free agents to help any team that is
> struggling or 
> falling behind.   

Neato!

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. 

On a couple of other topics: 

Ali wrote:
> Would anyone want to be a Slytherin or Hufflepuff? 

Erm. 

<thinks>

Well, I suppose I wouldn't mind if that's what we wind up doing. But not Hufflepuff -- 
they're a lot o' duffers. ; )
 
> I think if we did all work on one FP, it would be
> unworkable. But 
> what is there to stop us from having teams of people
> working on 
> particular sections of a FP? This way, we would not
> be falling over 
> ourselves. I just feel that we really should have a
> FP on Harry by 
> now. 
> 
> >snip<
>
> I personally believe that Harry should be our
> priority. I also think 
> that if Hagrid is indeed toast in OoP, then he
> should be 
> prioritised - if we keep an eye out for Hagrid
> posts.
> 
> I have still got my Quidditch post to do, and I will
> do it, although 
> it will really be a practical document rather than a
> work of 
> literary merit. It is *only* Quidditch after all
> <bg>.

Er, well, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to shove my oar in at this point -- I'm still 
feeling very newbie-like -- but it does seem to me that Harry should be a priority; I'd 
be willing to help write that, if necessary. And Hagrid, 'cause he *is* toast, Eileen's 
really quite compelling Lupin theory notwithstanding. 

But, er, it occurs to me that *another* big priority -- and one I'd probably be far more 
interested in researching/writing (pleasepleaseplease?) is the one on the Wizarding 
World's government. 

Because it quite frankly sounded to me when I read the --

SPOILER 

CARD

(What's our spoiler policy again? 'Cause there's going to be one right here.)

<pauses to let any hold-outs run away>








-- that OOP is going to be at *least* as concerned with the issues at the Ministry as it 
is with the fight against Voldemort and the DE's. All that emphasis on the unreliability 
of the magical government. In fact, if I may make a prediction -- though not my 
*one* prediction -- the Ministry may not survive OOP, and almost certainly not 6. I 
don't expect this to remain a two-front war for the next three books. Sadly, because 
that would be cool. 

But anyway, it sounds like there's going to be a lot of Ministry stuff in the next book 
-- and anyway, even pre-OOP, there's been 

<bows to Elkins and Eileen>

a lot of brilliant stuff about the Crouches that could easily be included in an updated 
FAQ.

As for Amanda's question about preserving the old
FAQ's -- I guess I'm kind of in two minds on this one at the moment. On the one 
hand, historical
preservation -- if that doesn't sound too horrendously pompous -- would be a nice 
thing to have. And I'm a huge fan of the current FAQ's. On the other hand, there seem 
to be some. . . I don't know, logistical difficulties.
 
For one thing. . . well, what if we have to wait
*another* three years for Book Six? At that point do we start a *third* set of FAQ's? 
And if not, why not? Surely the output between Five and Six could be as excellent as 
the output between Four and Five; so why would we preserve the one and not the 
other? It just seems that at that point a lot of newer members -- I expect we'll have a 
lot post-OOP -- would get miffed. But if we do that, and do it again between Six and 
Seven, and again at the end of the series, we'll end up with about five sets of FAQ's, 
and I guess at that point it starts sounding a bit unwieldy.

For another thing, though. . . I'm not quite sure how to put this. But it seems if we're 
gonna have two sets of FAQ's -- classic FAQ's and new FAQ's -- then the division 
between the two should be something like pre-OOP and post-OOP. Because that 
signal a real sea-change in the group's thinking, and be a clearly logical division 
point. But we *haven't* fully updated the FAQ's pre-OOP, and it seems just kinda 
arbitrary to have the old ones break off at the as-far-as-we-happened-to-get-to-
them point and then have the new ones continue with a lot of pre-OOP posts in them. 
Now we could leave the old FAQ's as they are and then just start the new ones with 
post-OOP posts; but a lot would fall through the cracks.
 
Including the Crouch Novenna.
 
And it seems to me that any catalogue of Fantastic
Posts that misses the Crouch Novenna has got some
fairly serious problems.

Er.
 
Hope I wasn't too obnoxious or anything. And that I didn't embarrass Elkins too 
much.
 
 
 
 
Derannimer, making like she actually knows something about all of this