> How about updating information in old FAQs which appear not to be
> actively maintained? I can see multiple problems with this, but I
The precedence is to recommend that someone interested enough in solving
the problem create a new FAQ, with a new title. If the maintainer of
the original document is truely no longer reachable (as opposed to
just refusing to answer email), then the old FAQ would be retired and
the new one, with a new title, take it's place.
> think it will become increasingly common that FAQs are being posted
> with (a) outdated information and (b) an invalid address for the
> author. Now if somebody would volunteer to fix some problem spots but
> is unwilling to "take over" the FAQ, wouldn't it be nice if there was
> a procedure for that?
If the old FAQ owner is still around, and just too busy or not interested,
then there's nothing that should be done by the FAQ maintainers - IMO.
The problem should be left to the interested parties - either to negotiate
a resolution, or to start 'publishing' a competitive document.
> Since the headers are not technically really part of the FAQ itself,
> how would you feel about a license to e.g. add a comment to the
> headers when the original author's address is found to be invalid?
> That would at least allow some sort of first-aid measures to be taken.
IMO, if the original author's address is invalid, the FAQ should not be
shipped. A FAQ should be required to contain, in some place in the document,
a valid email address and HUMAN NAME for comments, concerns, etc. I
would hate to see the FAQ maintainers taken into court because of libelous
info in a FAQ but no names in the document itself to identify the source
of these comments.
> Another idea would be to allow "secondary" authors' comments to be
> appended at the beginning or the end of the main FAQ (perhaps under
> their own headers) -- I can think of other reasons why this would be
> nice, too.
I think that secondary authors should just post an alternative FAQ.
I believe this is already being done in at least one newsgroup - the
one where "welcome to usenet", etc. appears. There is "another way
to look at the usenet" or some such document that I notice appearing
regularly.
> (Case in point: The "Pointer to Archive Servers FAQ" does not contain
> any valid pointers [even the alternative location, on Netcom, is
> invalid]. You would at least like to get a chance to contact this guy
> to get these silly pointers changed, or ask him to stop posting
> outdated information which will only confuse the newbies who are his
> primary audience, but of course, his e-mail address is on the same
> nonexistent host that the pointer points to. Oh well, whatever. ;-)
In this case, if my suggestions seem valid, then I would suggest that someone
a) make the case that the document shouldn't be posted until the author
appears asking for it to begin again, b) an alternative document - using
a different format and the author's own research for the info, be posted
with a new title.
-- Larry W. Virden INET: lvirden@cas.org <URL:http://www.teraform.com/%7Elvirden/> <*> O- "We are all Kosh." Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should be construed as representing my employer's opinions.