Re: Looking at were we are...

John Novak (jsn@cegt201.bradley.edu)
Fri, 21 May 1999 22:30:03 -0500 (CDT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Angela Boyko: "Re: Looking at were we are..."
Previous message: John Novak: "Re: Looking at were we are..."
In reply to: Kent Landfield: "Re: Looking at were we are..."
Next in thread: Imran Ghory: "Re: Looking at were we are..."
Next in thread: Edward Reid: "Re: Looking at were we are..."

> # As time goes by, the number of abandoned FAQs will increase. That's only
> # to be expected.

> Is it ? Why ? Why does the process seem to foster that idea. Why aren't
> they being handed off to others to maintain ? Why doesn't the process allow
> for removal of abandoned FAQs ?

Because the mindset of the FAQ cognoscenti, so far as I can determine,
is to remain as Usenet a-political as humanly possible.

What process do _you_ recommend for cleaning up abandoned FAQs, that
remains completely a-political? If the original writer does not
specifically hand the FAQ off to someone else, then some human being
_other_ than the writer needs to make the decision to remove it.
What criteria, specifically, do we use to determine when an FAQ should
be removed?

> :) By stating what you just did you told the reader to go to the web
> first. :-) You could have said get it from rtfm.mit.edu but you didn't.
> In the perception of the reader is appears you prefer the web over the
> Usenet distribution. That was my point.

Why is this a problem?

-- 
John S. Novak, III       	jsn@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net

Next message: Angela Boyko: "Re: Looking at were we are..."
Previous message: John Novak: "Re: Looking at were we are..."
In reply to: Kent Landfield: "Re: Looking at were we are..."
Next in thread: Imran Ghory: "Re: Looking at were we are..."
Next in thread: Edward Reid: "Re: Looking at were we are..."

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]