> I'd be interested to hear how the other medical FAQ maintainers would handle
> such a situation. Thanks.
I'm not a medical FAQ maintainer, but I am a legal one. When I first
prepared my Copyright FAQ, I solicited reviewers, both laymen and lawyers
(including professors and practicing attorneys) on the CNI-Copyright
mailing list. I used the lay reviewers to find out if I did not explain
things clearly enough, and the lawyers to make sure I didn't have any
egregious errors. On the latter, I had some nits that deserved picking,
which resulted in corrections before the FAQ was first issued.
(Unfortunately, one glaring error somehow slipped by, and I'm embarrassed,
since it was even an area that I knew better -- my only excuse was that I
had the flu at the time I wrote that section, and I was gooned on Nyquil.)
If I encountered a similar problem to yours, I would draft an addition and
post it to the list for comments, and factor the information from the
comments into the FAQ. I suggest that you can do the same, either in a
mailing list (my preference, since it seems a little less public, and is
among professionals), or in the groups served by your FAQ.
--
Terry Carroll | "A computer programming language is not the English
Santa Clara, CA | language, despite the fact that English words may be
carrollt@netcom.com | used in that language."
carroll@aimnet.com | - U.S. Patent & Trademark Office proposed Examination
| Guidelines for Computer-Implemented Inventions
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved