Second, what if a group decides it can handle two or three FAQs, but
another group decides otherwise? Most likely, this is the sort of
thing that would be settled in a group charter (because it would bear
directly on the nature of the votes)-- except no group charter that I
know of mentions such a detail. This, too, would add to the
bureaucracy level, since groups would be changing their charters madly
to try and deal with the changes.
Third, how does one deal with a split of the nature which began this
discussion, when an existing FAQ comes under fire from one or a few
individuals? Does the group go through an RFD process? Who
determines if there's enough interest to go through with a CFV? How
often are challenges permitted?
Fourth, I don't think it would really prevent anyone from launching
their own separate FAQs to begin with. It would prevent people from
posting them to the moderated *.answers groups, and it would probably
prevent them from being archived at any of the pseudo-official
repositories, but in my experience when people look for an FAQ, the
first thing they do is scan the group for the subject header 'FAQ'.
Fifth, given human nature, and open voting of the sort is probably
going to degenerate from a contest of erudition and knowledge to a
contest of popularity. One would hope that the more popular members
of any one group are also the most knowledgeable and that the bulk of
a given group will realize this, but I'm much too cynical to believe
that for all groups, everywhere, all the time. I doo _not_ like the
idea of FAQs becoming popularity contests. In some groups, I doubt it
would matter, ubt I can see the situation in some of the more volatile
soc and talk groups becoming a nightmare of internal group politics.
Imagine the talk.origins group successfully challenged by some kind of
mad junta of Creationists!
(I seem to have run out of fingers on this hand...)
Sixth, how do you determine eligibility of voters? In my opinion,
FAQs are matter entirely _internal_ to the group. Holding public
votes for FAQs opens the matters to the entire broad spectrum of kooks
that is Usenet. I fail to see why matters internal to nice sleepy,
quiet groups, or even nice loud, boistrous groups should be brought to
anything resembling public opinion so that the likes of Grubor and
Boursy can start drumming up trouble with their Artificial Stupidity
programs. This makes scenarios like the bad dream of point five more
of a reality. But if the votes aren't public, how to determine who
votes?
Seventh, mechanics. Is this a vote in the style of the 2/3 and +100
style, like we require for the creation of a newsgroup? What a
nightmare.
Eighth, practicalities. Who exactly is going to _conduct_ these
votes? The Volunteer Votetakers? I suspect they're more than a bit
overworked to begin with. I don't want to take responsibility for all
these largely inappropriate votes, do you?
(Damn, I thought I was going to start needing my toes there, for a
minute. Give me a little bit, maybe I can come up with three more
points.)
I can't see this plan as viable.
-- John S. Novak, III jsn@cegt201.bradley.edu http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html The Humblest Man on the Net
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved