In rapid succession Heidi Anderson, Stan Schwarz, and Rob Maxwell
all wrote:
> ...My question is how do we go about getting our new FAQ to be the
> "official" one that can get posted to *.answers and archived, etc,
> without defining a new archive name and having them exist side-by-side
> in the archives, which could get confusing.
> ...So if we can't use her FAQ, and we write a new one, how do we
> declare ours to be the 'official' FAQ and have hers declared dead?
> There is a group that is actively writing a new FAQ, so if we can have
> that one declared to be the official FAQ, that would be all right.
> rec.arts.anime.misc is encountering a similar problem... Moving on,
> we started submissions to *.answers but the first test was put on hold
> waiting for the prior maintainer's consent but they can't seem to get
> a reply either. In short, we have a number of FAQs stuck in limbo at
> *.answers moderation.
There is no such thing as an "official" newsgroup FAQ list,
or if there is, that distinction is not bestowed by news.answers
or its moderation team. Remember, Usenet is mostly an anarchy,
and although news.answers is a moderated newsgroup, its
moderators enforce only issues of form and logistics, not content
or cachet. Asking or expecting the news.answers moderators to
get involved in copyright disputes (let alone the internecine
political squabbling that goes on in some newsgroups) is a sure
way to decrease the efficiency of the moderation process to
uselessness.
In the cases discussed above, I'd say *definitely* just duck
the issue and go with a new archive-name. Yes, this may cause
a bit of confusion among readers (particularly if they imagine
that there's supposed to be just one "official" list) but the
confusion is nothing compared with the pain, anguish, unnecessary
responsibility placed on news.answers moderators, and sheer lost
time which are implied by an attempt to "take over" an existing
archive-name tag without the cooperation of a former maintainer.
Ask yourselves: would the readers of your newsgroup be better
served by having the new-and-improved FAQ list available now,
under a new-and-improved archive-name, or unknown numbers of
months from now, under the old one?
If the existence of two parallel lists (or sets of lists)
engenders any confusion, the dates on the documents and the
freshness (or staleness) of the information should make it easy
to sort out for most readers, or you can add the question
"Q: Why are there two FAQ lists for this newsgroup?
Which is the official one?"
to the new-and-improved list, and explain the situation as you
see it. (Your declaration that the new-and-improved list is the
"official" one will carry precisely as much weight as anyone
else's.)
Steve Summit
scs@eskimo.com
*************************************************************
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