David wrote, about splitting the article into one about Azimuth and another about network theory:
> That makes complete sense to me.
Yes, to me too.
> But if it were split into two right now, the first part, on the introduction to the Azimuth project, would be too thin. That leads back to the question about what are the actual main activities of the Azimuth project, as it stands today. My answer: the multi-author blog.
That's the most visible part, but don't forget the wiki! There's a lot of stuff in there, and I draw on it whenever I give talks about global warming or other environmental issues.
I'd also count a lot of my talks as Azimuth activities. You can see some [here](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/TALKS.html).
And I'd also count the network theory project as an Azimuth activity! I don't think you should exclude it when discussing Azimuth. But it's so big that it could easily deserve another post.
> A while back, there was nice wave of activity on the Azimuth Code Project – which I would like to reactivate, at least by writing some blogs and doing some coding myself.
I agree, it should be rejuvenated! It's just not my own personal strong point.
You could talk about Azimuth as it is and Azimuth as it should be...