The confusion may be compounded by the difference between +the first+
posting of a FAQ and subsequent +periodic+ postings.
From the point of view of the FAQ-maintainer, the transaction is curious
the first time -- I send this thing to them, they read it, and then they
won't put it in the *.answers group! Why the **** not?!
From the point of view of the moderators, it's not the first transaction
that matters -- We don't want all these updated FAQs showing up in our
mailboxes so we give people "approval headers" which let FAQs go directly
into *.answers! Why the **** do the maintainers keep sending them to us?!
The people who read the *.answers FAQs tend, of course, to be people who
are focussed on getting the thing done the first time. The people who
write the FAQs, though, are people who are concerned with maintaining the
system over the long haul. That difference of emphasis may well be the
source of much misunderstanding.
I think both the guidelines and introductions would be improved and the
process smoother if a stronger distinction were made between +initial+
and +periodic+ postings. (This is not the only place in life where the
first time is different from all other times.... :-) But I won't spend
time with examples.... :-). )
Putnam Barber
soc.org.nonprofit FAQ maintainer-in-waiting
Seattle
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved