If we want good analysis, then I think that we will definitely need a baseline of performance to work from. Its not going to help our winning chances of somebody is using software which cannot offer strong move choices for us to consider. I don't want to be extremely picky about it, but I want to think we are going to compete so that we can win. :)
I think the CEGT and CCRL lists are a good start.
http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/
I think similar. If our interest is to play with the engine's analysis we need engines to analice the positions and it wouldn't be very useful having people that hasn't any engine. If someone wants to get in we can recommend maybe a website where he/she can download a good engine and have more people analyzing with the same engine maybe to have an analysis in less time, maybe if someone is on vacation or something similar
I think we need good engines and also people with good chess knowledge. Chess engines won't agree on the moves in most of the times and we need people with good chess skills to select the best of the suggested moves. I can run Fruit and post the lines here, but I certainly don't have enough experience to choose between the 23-24 ply moves offered by the engines.
I would like to get thoughts about whom to add to the team. It is clear we are looking for people who will read the forum and vote for moves based on the consensus of the engine analysis. I would assume we also want people who have strong software available. Should there be a ratings cutoff for that software? Should we use the CEGT ratings list for Elo at 40 moves in 120 min and not admit someone whose software isn't comparable with what we have? Or should we be more open and allow anyone interested even if their software is obsolete. Here is the CEGT site: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_120_ratinglist/ratinglist/rangliste.html)