To all,
        I heartily agree.  I have been noticing lately that the list is an
ongoing
list of unanswered questions.  I've gotten to the point where I reflexively
delete most of the postings on this list because there is so little "meat"
to them.  Maybe there is some discussion going on behind the scenes, but it
is not reflected on the list.
        I have seen other lists that *require* summaries.  In those lists, the
point is to minimize traffic and to maximize signal-to-noise ratio.  Their
rules are simple.  If one has a question it is posted directly to the list.
However, by asking a question, one incurs the *obligation* to summarize the
results of the responses to those on the list.  When summarizing, the
summary generally has the same subject heading, however it is preceded by
the word "[Summary]".  Thus, if the initial question was "How do I build an
accelerometer?"  The summary would be "[Summary] How do I build an
accelerometer?"
        In those lists, to minimize traffic from responses, those who wish to
reply
to a question, reply directly to the questioner.
        With regard to summaries, there are generally two types.  Some wish to
paraphrase and reformulate the responses in a short coherent couple of
paragraphs.  They will generally lists the respondents either in the body of
the message, much like a reference in a paper, or will list the names of the
respondents at the end of the message.  Alternatively, one can simply quote
the relevant passages from each of the replies in series and allow the
reader to draw their conclusion from the original texts of the replies (with
address headers stripped out for brevity and only the relevant text
remaining).  In this case, each quotation should begin with the name (and/or
email address) of the person being quoted, followed by the text (use of the
">" at the beginning of each line helps tremendously to distinguish the
quoted material.)
        I have seen systems like this work very well on high traffic mailing
lists,
especially when there is a division between the experts and the novices.
The point is to find a mechanism where the experts are willing to offer
their knowledge and the novices have access to it.  The experts are usually
very busy people and get tired of answering the same question
week-after-week, and they eventually either stop responding or they just
drop the list entirely and find a list without the novices.  I have seen
this happen too many times on different lists, it would be a shame to see it
happen here.
        These are my thoughts and I propose them to the members of the MEMS
Clearinghouse for consideration.

                Best regards,

                Kevin Shaw.