> I've recently found something similar to this... a small group of
> people on my newsgroup wanted to make some major changes to the FAQ.
> They apparently had several discussions amongst themselves, then
> posted their proposal for modification to the group...
>
> The problem was that they never bothered to ask my opinion or invite
> my input in the process. They never even told me that they thought
> there was a problem with the FAQ, or that there was any discussion,
> or anything.
Something like that happened to me. I didn't update the Red Dwarf FAQ
between December and April. I normally do it more often than that, but
I didn't consider this to be a major problem. The only significant
change was that one of the actors on the show, who had been charged with
a felony in mid-'94, was tried and acquitted in February. The FAQ only
reported that a trial was *scheduled* for February, but since there had
been nonstop discussion of the proceedings in alt.tv.red-dwarf
throughout February and March, I figured just about everyone who reads
the FAQ already knew the outcome.
In mid-April, I finally got the FAQ updated and posted the new version.
And then a document called FAQ Update appeared on the newsgroup. It was
a collection of new information that updated, corrected, or added to
what was in the FAQ. Several of the regular posters to the newsgroup
had cooperated to put it together. By the time it appeared, however,
most of it was unnecessary, since the updated FAQ was already available.
What puzzled me, though, was that none of these people had contacted me
to express their concern about the FAQ, or to give me any of the new
information. During the entire December-to-April period, I didn't
receive a single note from *anyone* complaining about the lack of
updates. Yet apparently these people were concerned enough to compile a
FAQ supplement on their own.
I have no idea why they didn't say anything to me about the matter. I
always thank people who send me FAQ information, and I almost always use
it. When I don't, I send them a polite note explaining my reasons. So
I don't think it's because I'm unapproachable.
> I was rather put off by all of that, and told them that, no matter
> *what* the rest of the group thought, I wouldn't put any changes in
> the FAQ that hadn't been discussed with me beforehand. I am happy
> to put in additions/deletions/changes, but not if I was left out of
> the loop entirely.
I felt more or less the same way, but decided that publicly expressing
anger would not be productive. I incorporated most of the FAQ Update
into the next version of the FAQ and posted it two weeks later. In the
newsgroup, I thanked the compilers of the FAQ Update for collecting all
of that useful information, and suggested that next time, it might be
more efficient to just mail the information directly to me.
I never did get any sort of response from the FAQ Update compilers, but
the Update hasn't been reposted. I guess I satisfied their concerns,
whatever they were.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved