I'm sure that anyone submitting something would understand this,
and all you would need to do is have the mail forwarded to a different
moderator in the meantime, if the crisis were going to be longer than
a day or two or whatever. The unpredictable crises tend to be short,
and a day or two here or there is not going to cause any FAQ submitter
a crisis. Having a single moderator who understood your situation but
was occasionally unavailable would still be better than having to
wait weeks on end *every single time* you send *anything* to
the moderators.
> Our policy of handling new and repeat correspondence on an equal footing
> does not affect the fact that all correspondence needs to be archived
> and logged. We do that through the published submission address.
And you could just as easily do that through several submission addresses,
one main one for first-time submissions, and several special moderator
addresses for subsequent discussions. This would have the advantage of
making it easier for you to log not only that correspondence came in,
but also who handled it. It would also reduce the pile of incoming
correspondence so that new submissions could be sent to moderators more
quickly.
I've received more than a couple messages from other FAQ maintainers
who agree that the system isn't working well, and while I understand
that there are reasons for doing things the way you're doing them,
I think you ought to look into improving them rather than justifying
the status quo.
If there really are only three moderators right now this would be a
good chance to make changes to the system, as there aren't that many
people who would need to be brought up to speed on a new system.
***********************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Frustrated neophyte FAQ maintainer
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved