I think what you are doing is GREAT, great work, very interesting and a good direction and I think your choice of the first person to interview was a good one.
But I'm going to be completely blunt here...
Since his views on the manuscript are controversial and unproven, I would rather see Stephen Bax in a debate with someone with a good reputation who holds different views from his than to see a question-answer format interview with SB.
I think it would be of greater benefit to the community and to Voynich research in general if the format chosen acknowledges whether the person's contributions are substantive (a curator or someone close to the history of the manuscript itself is a good choice because he or she has hands-on knowledge of the physical properties that most of us can never have) or speculative (in which case a debate or panel format with two to four people is far more likely to yield useful insights than giving a platform to an individual).
Unfortunately, the mere act of interviewing someone whose ideas are unproven, and sometimes strongly contested, seems to give that person a certain amount of "credibility by association" and you have to ask yourself whether that's the best way to use the time and resources of the Voynich community, and whether it will bring out information that furthers Voynich research. When it comes to unproven theories I think a panel format of people with a variety of views is more likely to be beneficial.
But I'm going to be completely blunt here...
Since his views on the manuscript are controversial and unproven, I would rather see Stephen Bax in a debate with someone with a good reputation who holds different views from his than to see a question-answer format interview with SB.
I think it would be of greater benefit to the community and to Voynich research in general if the format chosen acknowledges whether the person's contributions are substantive (a curator or someone close to the history of the manuscript itself is a good choice because he or she has hands-on knowledge of the physical properties that most of us can never have) or speculative (in which case a debate or panel format with two to four people is far more likely to yield useful insights than giving a platform to an individual).
Unfortunately, the mere act of interviewing someone whose ideas are unproven, and sometimes strongly contested, seems to give that person a certain amount of "credibility by association" and you have to ask yourself whether that's the best way to use the time and resources of the Voynich community, and whether it will bring out information that furthers Voynich research. When it comes to unproven theories I think a panel format of people with a variety of views is more likely to be beneficial.