> I suggest another way of doing things: a call for votes (CFV) in the
> same manner as the CFV for the creation of Usenet Newsgroups. If it
> were not for the CFV on the Usenet Newsgroup big 6, we'd be plagued
> with comp.fred.stinks etc. etc.
The CFV for a newsgroup asks for a yes or a no on creating
that group. The vote is almost always yes. If it is no, the
proposer is free to write a better proposal and try
again. The question does not decide validity or assign
approval; it does not decide the proposer's worth. It just
answers whether the group is redundant or necessary.
A CFV for a FAQ would accept one content and reject another
content. It would decide among competing ideas. Even worse,
it would approve one maintainer and disapprove another
maintainer. That is hostile to the spirit of free
speech. Only the readers, by popular consensus over years
and centuries, decide among authors and documents.
If we had a FAQ CFV, it would forever change the nature of a
FAQ to a kind of constitution, charter, bible, or
mandate. It would no longer be changeable, evolutionary,
personally introspective, as it is now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vicki Richman vicric@panix.com National Writers Union
Bedford, Brooklyn NY PGP 2.6 UAW Local 1981, AFL/CIO
"You are about to witness an experiment: the effect of electricity on Wood."
-Frederick Wood, the last person electrocuted by the State of New York.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved