On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, S L Painting wrote:
> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:23:38 +0100 (BST)
> From: S L Painting <postmaster@zedtoo.demon.co.uk>
> To: Henk P. Penning <henkp@cs.uu.nl>
> Cc: faq-maintainers@rkive.landfield.com
> Subject: Re: [faq-maintainers] Close up shop?
> On Tue 24 Apr, Henk P. Penning wrote:
> One possible mechanism would be to act on any replies received to the
> "warning" message. For example:
I think we are getting into details here. They are important,
but the broader issues
> 1. If a FAQ is unchanged after 12 months, email the maintainer of that
> FAQ to ask if it should be retained.
Over the years I have asked 100+ maintainers : will you repost soon ?
> 2. If the FAQ maintainer replies "no", delete the FAQ immediately.
This rarely happens, say 3%. I informed the news.answers moderators.
> 3. If the FAQ maintainer replies with any answer other than "no", mark
> the FAQ as still current (i.e. wait another 12 months).
90% says: I will do a rewrite real soon now. Usually it doesn't
happen; not soon anyway.
Some say : ... a bug in my posting procedure. Fixed now. Thanks. Fine.
> 4. If there is no answer (or if the only answer takes the form of an
> out-of-office autoreply), wait 1 month and ask again. If no reply
> has been received after (say) 6 months of trying, delete the FAQ
> (always assuming that the FAQ has not changed in the interim).
I would strongly advise a harsh bottom line scenario. Of course
moderators may try to stir up maintainers, possibly following
their own preferences (fun work remember). Moderators must be
able to concentrate on new stuff, and if there is some backlog,
the system should take care of the 'old stuff', or it will never
be done (as is the case now). Chasing maintainers is hard work,
and the rewards are small. Also faq maintainers simply disappear,
if you wait long enough. There has to be a simple bottom line.
> On a not-entirely-unrelated point, is there any mileage in splitting
> FAQs into "current" and "historic" categories? I'm thinking of the
> "historic RFC" as an analogy, in that the information may be of some
> use to certain people provided they are fully aware that it is no
> longer current. Just a thought...
Hm, maybe. When I said 'kill the faq' I meant 'stop posting'.
Archiving old stuff has problems: filename clashes; maintainers who
insist on deletes or small updates for legal or personal reasons.
Who is going to do the work, make the decisions ? Also, people find
faqs through search engines; they don't distinguish 'old' en 'current'.
> S L Painting <postmaster@zedtoo.demon.co.uk>
regards.
Henk Penning
Henk P. Penning, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University \__/ \
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. \__/
Telephone: +31-30-2534106, fax: 2513791, NIC-handle: HPP1 _/ \__/ \
News.answers http://www.cs.uu.nl/cgi-bin/faqwais \__/ \__/ \__/
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here
*************************************************************
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved