I wasn't able to make the first session (and will be unlikely to make others if they are to be held on Sundays), but I think that there's still a way to enable people like myself to be part of the process.
One part of the "dealing with unanswered questions" process is sifting out the "should be closed" questions from those worth spending some time on. This is something that is easier in a crowd: by myself, I might worry that I'd misunderstood the question, but if I can check and ask people in real-time, then I'd be more confident. What little I saw of the activity suggested that there was a fair bit of this going on in the session.
To help those, like myself, who weren't there, maybe a "summary sheet" could be published of those questions that were considered with a "status": "closed" and "answered" being two of the obvious ones, and "probably should be closed" or "looks like it might be interesting" being also useful (though snappier wording could be chosen!).
I'd also recommend that those who were there reflect a bit on which bits worked and which didn't. Speaking from my vast experience (ie none), I'd conjecture that the process didn't actually speed up the answering of questions, but that it was most effective in sorting out those questions that should be answered, and in getting answers validated. If I'm right, then a couple of modifications could be in order: a list of those questions to be considered could be published beforehand (as Joseph suggests) so that people can have a glance through first, and (as I suggest) a list of "things done" published afterwards so that others can look through and vote accordingly.
Anyway, well done to those that took part, and I hope that this continues!