Brainstorming Organizational Issues

[Cindy C.]

<Cindy looks around proudly to realize she is surrounded by people 
who like silly names>

Abigail:

> As for the fate of the soon-to-be 'classic' FAQs, I agree with 
> Derannimer that it seems a bit unfair to seal them when in fact we 
> haven't written so many of them, but that is the situation as it 
> stands.  I think it only makes sense that when we write new FAQs, 
> we write them from the perspective of OOP, which means that if 
> we discover definitively in OOP that Harry is the Heir of 
Gryffindor, 
> the rest of the theories regarding him shouldn't go in the FAQ.

Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense.

I'm still perplexed by the proposal of taking an episodic approach to 
the FPs.  For instance, let's say we don't start writing a Hagrid FP 
until January 2004.  Does it include everything about Hagrid written 
on the list since its inception?  If so, is the Hagrid FP itself 
divided into pre-OoP and post-OoP?  (If so, that sort of requirement 
might make it difficult to organize the FP efficiently.)  If some 
theories or topics are settled in OoP, then what?

Amanda:

>this allows the earlier FAQs to stand; if
>there was any writing of text, there will be not infringing on 
>authorship.


Ah.  Maybe we should talk about this.  

When I worked on the History FP and helped update the Mysteries FP, I 
kind of assumed that others would come along later and edit (or even 
scrap) the FP.  So if I were updating Pettigrew, for instance, I'd 
just take it and do whatever I thought was needed to make it up to 
date and as good as it could be.  I'd credit the original author, of 
course:  "by Aberforth's Goat and Cindy."  I'd also run the final 
draft past the original author in case I had butchered anything 
important.

Is that the assumption others have had?  It might be helpful if 
authors of our existing FPs weighed in on this authorship issue.  


Abigail:

> What we might want to consider, though, is a dead theories 
> basement - a place for good theories that were proven wrong.  

I think this is another good idea.  This could be part of 
the "Mysteries FP" perhaps.  And we could call it either "Azkaban" or 
the dungeon or something else.  Something silly.  ;-)

Abigail:

>It would provide an interesting historical perspective, and who 
>knows, some of those theories might be rehashed into new forms.  

And surely some people will take pleasure in trying to revive an old, 
dead theory with some new canon.

Abigail:

> In closing, I've had a potentially unpleasant thought.  Like 
>several other respondanats to this thread, I would also like to work 
>on the Harry FP, but now I've been wondering what happens if too 
>many people want to work on a certain designated FP and not on 
> any of the others.  I know, I'm just stirring up trouble with this, 
>but I suspect the question will come up.

I'm thinking we probably won't have too many problems with too many 
people wanting to do the same FP.  Regarding Harry, I imagine his FP 
will be huge, so it may require 6 people.  On balance, I do hope we 
can find a way to make sure everyone works on things that appeal to 
them, though.  I think we should make that high priority.

Anyway, when we return from OoP and consult the polls about which FPs 
are a priority, we can set up a poll that would allow people to sign 
up for the FP that interests them.

Cindy