> Thamer Al-Herbish wrote:
>
> > > I disagree with having other maintainers vote on whether a FAQ is
> > > accepted or not. The current practice seems fine, a faq is accepted
> > > when the maintainer demonstrates the technical ability to properly
> > > submit his/her FAQ.
>
> > If you wanted *.answers to give some quality branding that is one
> > way of doing it. Of course there is no reason why *.answers should.
> > I am guilty of extending the argument now.
>
> Quality branding? What are you on about now? All I stated was the
> facts. The Approved header is granted to those who:
I mentioned we could vote in FAQs as a side note and you said you
didn't want it. I then said it's the only to get quality branding.
That's what I was "going on about." This side note has now
degenerated into not being very helpful to the current topic.
> > *rant-on*
> > These kooks should stop using the net and return to their
> > happy-go-lucky world on planet earth. But they are lurk in the
> > networks nonetheless.
> > *rant-off*
>
> That's my thought exactly.
Yep and we shouldn't have to change anything because some kooks are
harassing David. Someone else had a good suggestion of mentioning a
rope along with a bodily function to them. I agree with that as well.
I think a well written form letter that drew a less provocative
analogy is in order.
> > I would like to see David's rationale on how the disclaimer will
> > prevent kooks from harassing him (if that's what they did).
>
> So, it seems, would a lot of us.
David maybe you should restate why you're doing this in more depth.
It would help us understand.
-- Thamer Al-Herbish PGP public key: shadows@whitefang.com http://www.whitefang.com/pgpkey.txt [ The Secure UNIX Programming FAQ http://www.whitefang.com/sup/ ]
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved