Hi Horse,

> Horse wrote:
> I think what Ant means here is that I perform essentially the same 
> function with a Wiki as I currently do with MD, which is, in the case of 
> 
> MD, to keep an eye on how discussions develop and step in if it looks 
> like serious conflict is likely. Oh yeah, and kicking off people who get 
> 
> really stupid as happens very occasionally. It's not something I have to 
> 
> do with any regularity these days as MD is pretty much self-regulating.
> In the case of an MOQ Wiki I'd like it to come under the moq.org 
> umbrella (probably moqtalk.org) and would only want input if there was 
> anyone or anything that would be considered damaging to the MoQ, Robert 
> Pirsig or individual members etc.
> As to joining the editorial team, I'd be quite happy to stand aside and 
> let a group of folk that I (and Ant) trust get on with it. I'm sure we 
> could hammer out a set of mutually agreed rules without too much trouble 
> 
> or conflict.
> Does that sound reasonable?
> 

David:
Yeah, rules are good.

Horse wrote: 
> I think that with the right group of people any work here could be 
> spread fairly and minimised. It's really just a case of getting the 
> right group and making sure they all have the same goal in mind. 
> Although this is probably easier sad than done to be honest. Again, I'd 
> only want to get involved if there were conflicts to resolve that 
> couldn't be resolved between group members.
> 
> There's no way I'd want to micro-manage or interfere in the general 
> running of things as I'm just too bloody lazy. :)
> 
> Let me know what you think.

Yes, this all sounds like a good idea as I think it addresses somewhat Ians concerns that the MOQ Wiki was not 'being looked after sufficiently' when it runs under the MOQ name.  I've emailed Gert-Jan Peeters for the current Wiki files and I'll send them onto you if that's okay?

Cheers,

David.