[Good questions, but I think we'll have to answer most of them by trial an error or on a book by book basis. That said, I'll give my tentative preferences.] Gaertk at aol.com wrote on Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:58:30> > How much are we biting off at a time? I like the idea of > doing one chapter at a time so we can really delve in and > analyse the heck out of eveything, A chapter at a time sounds good to me, too. > but there's a total of > about 250 chapters (including interludes, epilogues, etc) > which at one a week would take 5 years, even at one a day > it'd take nearly a year. I think we need to resign ourselves to realizing we won't be able to do that many of these intensive discussions a year. > A whole book at a time wouldn't > allow too much depth of discussions before moving on. So > compromise with a few chapters? And how much time between > chunks? These are hard questions. Tentative idea: Schedule the start of a discussion at least one month into the future, to give people who want to a chance to make a first pass through it before going into deep discussion. Also, I think many of us will want some breathing room between discussions. Then, aim to release chapters over the course of either 34 or 17 days, which comes out to 2 or 1 or .5 new chapter each day. But I think this should be subject to adjustment in the middle of a discussion. > What order do we do them? Published, chronological, > alphabetical, random, Cycle? I think I'd like to do _Paths of the Dead_ as soon as possible. Besides that, I guess I don't care too much about the order. - tky