> At 12:27 4/6/95, Pat Berry wrote:
> > 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.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> That's not what FAQs are for, though, in my opinion. They're not so much
> for regulars in the group to read -- although they often provide an
> invaluable information source. They're more for newcomers who often arrive
> full of valid but all-too-familiar questions.
That's true, but those newcomers would have immediately have seen the
answer to that question being posted in the newsgroup on a daily basis.
Unless they didn't bother to read anything before posting, in which case
the FAQ would have done them no good.
I admit that I was delinquent in not updating the FAQ sooner -- but I
stand by my assertion that the effect of my delinquency was minimal
during that period.
> Hmm. I can't speak for the people involved (there is a certain cliquishness
> to alt.tv.red-dwarf) but there was increasing concern voiced publicly in
> the group, particularly when faqserv kept posting the same increasingly
> outdated document. Pat was noticably quiet at that time. It's very
> understandable that work and other concerns can push maintenance onto the
> back-burner, but I think that in these cases it's polite to inform the
> readership that the FAQ will still be actively maintained when time allows.
That's a valid point, and I would have made such a statement if I had
been aware that anyone was worried. (Evidently I missed the articles
you saw.) But didn't it occur to *anyone* to express this "increasing
concern" by sending me a note?
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved