I think that the fact that the new digests are sent out after 12 posts was a problem at first. Because the Discussion Group was being relaunched, many more posts were being sent every day. My observation was that the old daily digest usually had between 1-20 posts per day. Now consider, say, 72 posts the first day this format was implemented. That would mean SIX e-mails that day. Yes, that was annoying, and I think a lot of us were overwhelmed.
Fortunately, I was able to choose between the "full" Daily Digest, which included the messages (similar to the old daily digest), and the Daily Summary, which had links to the messages. I also understand the distinction between the two.
However, while I appreciate that 12 seems to be a number that was agreed upon as the cutoff for sending a new digest, I am thinking that, especially when traffic is heavy, this number is probably too low. I would suggest a cutoff of 20, which would accommodate most traffic (and if there are more than 20 posts per day, maybe multiple digests are a necessary evil).
I think the trend lately is that we all are subjected to a new format, the kinks are still being worked out, and we are kvetching about multiple digests vs. a daily summary, the need for a distinctive login for the groups, etc. Please, I urge you all--be patient with the moderators and the technical staff. Some people want all the messages in one daily digest, even if scrolling through 50 posts would be objectionable to others. Others want a daily summary, even if others don't like the fact that we can't see the content of the message without clicking on a link. Maybe you should repeat to yourself, "You can't please everyone," when you see a feature you don't like. Seriously, if we kvetch about this, it only adds to the length of the daily digest or summary. Let's just let the process work out and we may never have this problem after the first weeks.