I think JD Foster makes the most important point in the "Library"
discussion. The real value in such an undertaking would be to do a
collective/skilled cull of information as well as an organization of it. The
format is something I'm not qualified to comment on, but I think there is an
opportunity for the many people on the list to act as editors and to
assemble only the best of the archives. There is too much in the archives
and it was not designed to separate the good stuff from the less reliable
and informed. Maybe we could have some of the old hands and technically
proficient select from a list of proposals submitted by other volunteers
who would comb the archives. In other words a two tiered process of
selection so the work could go quickly and it would not kill any one
volunteer.

Once established a small committee could evaluate new material to determine
if it would add new value and if so put it in the library. I don't think
you'd want to allow all listees to add their own material or the library
would soon resemble the archives.

Just some ideas.

Alan Pickersgill

> IMHO, I think that the primary benefit is in taking the good/usefull info
> from the existing archives and compiling it into a categorized and
moderated
> (emphasis on moderated) reference tool.  Yes, the archives are there and
are
> searchable (via whatever tool you choose, be it the built-in search or
> google), but that doesn't discount the merit of separating the wheat from
> the chaff.
>