In <9507111433.AA29479@moe.optics.rochester.edu>, Pamela Greene
<pgreene@optics.rochester.edu> wrote:
> I am in the process of revising the *.answers guidelines, with the
> main goal of making them easier to use. Specific and constructive
> suggestions for the guidelines would be welcomed. For more general
> comments, I would ask that you please wait until you've seen the new
> version. (Don't hold your breath, though; I just got started on it.)
They say great minds think alike :)
I had just posted an article about the need to simplify the guideline used by
the *.answers moderators and it seems to have crossed in the mail.
I would really like to see a simple statement of what is mandatory to have an
FAQ automatically archived. If you define what the objective of the
guidelines are, I cannot see any reason why it should be any more elaborate
than that except for advisory matters incidental to that.
A simplified statement limited to what the moderators wanted to approve an
FAQ should have an impact on their work load as the maintainers would have a
better ideas of what is required.
If I may make a suggestion that, should it be necessary to go beyond this
simple objective (e.g. comments on other elements of the heading), the
additional material go in an appendix and any matters relating to FAQ formats
should be crossed referenced but located elsewhere.
As I stated in my posting, it is good material for a RFC.
Robert
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved