That helps, but it won't solve the major problem, which is how much
work both the moderators and I have to do in order to hash out a few
bytes of header under the current system.
The trouble is that in addition to the headers I also have to send
an explanation of the overall structure of the FAQ, and an explanation
of why I think a given header is better than other possibilities, and
provide all the relevant context from previous discussions which
the moderator who reads the resubmission may know nothing about, and
so on. Then they have to read the whole mess, figure out what the
hell is going on, and then tell me what could be fixed, at which point
I have to go through the whole process again. Especially because with
a large complex FAQ there's a substantial chance that someone will
misunderstand something and confusion will result.
> Write up a small script which mails the articles to the address you
> want. YOu will need that script in the future too when some reader
> asks you for a copy of all parts of FAQ. Again you will end up
> sending hours. Btw, sending 20 files takes several hours ? I should
> not take more than 1 min per file, I would think.
It's not the transmission time so much as it is the time it takes to
rewrite all the headers and then write up an explanation of what the
whole thing is about. If I didn't have to submit all the headers,
and then explain what it's all about, but could just converse with
the moderator who handled the original submission, it would simplify
things a lot. I'd be happy to resubmit the whole FAQ one last time
if I only knew that it was likely to be approved finally. It's the
intermediate steps of negotiating a header that's acceptable to both
moderators and maintainers that I think could be improved most.
>] I realize that the moderators have a tremendous workload, but it
>] seems to me that it would be a lot more efficient for all involved
>] if, once an FAQ wiggles its way to the top of the submission queue,
>] further correspondence on the FAQ could be expedited so that the
>] overall approval time for an FAQ could remain fairly low. As it
>
> In which case, they will be delaying the FAQs for approval which
> have just joined the queue. How would you feel if your FAQ was
> at the bottom and took 6 weeks because moderators were busy
> debating & resolving the FAQ on the top of the list.
As I tried to explain above, it would be much more efficient for the
*moderators* if they could continue to work on a problem with which
they were already familiar. Ping Huang admits that he does this on
occasion anyway; I'm saying make it an official policy. When someone
submits an FAQ for the first time, have *one* of the moderators
take over the handling of that FAQ. The one moderator, being familiar
with the issues, can handle subsequent correspondence much more quickly
and easily than anyone else could, espcially if the two-week delay is
taken out so the moderator doesome guidance on how to navigate this nightmare
more efficiently?
>
>Yes. Take a breath and go read a newspaper on the potty. Then go and
>meditate--relax and try to be patient. If you are a scientist, YOU of
>all people should know how long it takes to "publish" a peer-reviewed
>article. There is nothing holding you back from posting to your group.
>And those who want to read about your subject probably read the
>newsgroup, I'm sure.
I certainly hope *you're* not a *.answers moderator, if that's your
attitude.
*********************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Conventional Fusion FAQ Maintainer
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved