Ian Goddard wrote: >As I've suggested a couple of times in this discussion there's a need to step back from assuming what tools to use and, indeed, what form of governance to use until it's decided what, if anything, we want to do. A very good point. :) It might be a good idea for James or someone to list out some bullet points of what the proposal must have, maybe should have, and definitely should not have. I already understood that a focus on quality is one point (proper sourcing etc), and I think I understood the idea was about manor histories? I raised a question very far back in the discussion about whether the idea is therefore to make something like an improved VCH? (Which itself is like an improved version of some of the great county histories that we all still use so much.) How would it be different? But to be honest I am not even confident I understand the proposal that well. The main thing I understood is that advice was being sought :) Regards Andrew