I do have a specific suggestion, however.
Robert F. Heeter writes:
> 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.
Ping Huang writes:
>> There's some trade-offs here. It would take some additional time to
>> try to pick out the entries in the queue which are known to be
>> resubmissions rather than new resubmissions; also, ultimately, the
>> reduced waiting time for resubmissions would have to be paid for by
>> increased waiting time for new submissions. This might be bad since
>> people with new submissions have no idea at all if their submissions
>> got to us or disappeared into the ether. (Our plans to install a
>> quick-and-dirty auto-reply to acknowledge receipt of submissions this
>> summer got sidetracked since the organization which donates the use of
>> rtfm.mit.edu hardware was to have upgraded at the end of the summer
>> [from the current DECstation 5000/25 to a SPARCstation 20], so the
>> auto-reply feature is waiting until the hardware cutover.)
>> Now, in practice, I will admit that sometimes when I see replies from
>> FAQ maintainers addressing some problem which I just recently sent
>> email to them about, I'll often yank them out of queue out of order.
Ping, why not send a special message to whoever is in the situation
Robert described, something like "Put this phrase in your subject line"?
Then you can simpler filter out those messages which you expect a response
to and need to be high in the queue. You can change the phrase each month.
-- Ken Sall current Motif FAQ maintainer
-- Century Computing, Inc.
-- Internet: ksall@cen.com
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved