> >On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 23:23:40 EDT,
> >pv02@Lehigh.EDU (PETER VOROBIEFF) wrote:
> > > Hmmm... This looks like a solution. Definitely. Democratic, and does
> > > not make news.answers moderators' backs bend under the burden of
> > > decision-making. Whaddya say, folks?
Count this as a NO, as well. Sometimes there are different FAQs simply
because somebody inherited the idea, not the document. For example, the
FAQ(s) for the comp.lang.forth newsgroup has gone through many incarnations,
depending on who could maintain it.
Since I now help maintain this FAQ, I notice that there are a lot of
'historical' (read: outdated) FAQtual docs out there when I troll for
information. The net ain't universal, yet; we can step on toes without
even realizing it.
As for "official" FAQs: I agree with the general sentiment that it's hard
to know what an "official" document would consist of, and who makes that
decisions.
Let's keep it simple. If a newsgroup can support more than one FAQ, and
also maintain news.answers guidelines, then so be it. I'm sure this is
an exception, not the rule.
Jon D. Verne <jverne@acs.ryerson.ca>
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved