B sounds OK to me...
>For the second problem (transition from 2 to 3):
>A. Continue informally as now. It's no problem if stage 3 happens years after
> Stage 2, or immediately after stage 2.
>B. Never go to stage 3. It doesn't cost anything to keep a few more files
> around.
>C. Develop specific policies for the following 3 separate situations
> - When a maintainer says a FAQ is dead (currently: Do stage 2 and 3
> together)
> - When a maintainer won't post but still keeps the info around (currently:
> never enter stage 3 unless a moderator happens to feel like re-querying
> several months later.
> - When a maintainer never responds but mail doesn't bounce (currently, we
> likely don't notice)
> - When queries to a maintainer bounce (currently: policy a little unclear.
> When I resumed archive maintenance, I deleted anything that hadn't been
> posted for a year for which the mail bounced, but if I keep up regular
> maintenance I'll start getting such situations after a mere 3 months,
> which seems too short for complete deletion)
>I'd prefer C because I'm a detail-obsessed control freak :-) but can cope with
>A or B.
I like B better, because:
* There is some value in maintaining an archive of past FAQs.
* It is less work for you, so you will respond faster to new FAQ issues.
* Old FAQs are marked with their date of last update, anyway, so people who
find an old FAQ will know that it is old.
* Some FAQs actually retain value for a significant time, even if the
author suddenly disappears from the face of the Earth.
* Storage is cheap.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved