In message <200105070451.VAA37488@moe.cosmo.pasadena.ca.us>
Stan Schwarz <stan@cosmo.pasadena.ca.us> wrote:
[snip]
> It's the rec.arts.bodyart piercing FAQ. Anne left the group in a huff
> back in 1999, and she's been pretty much uncommunicative since then.
> She refuses to give the FAQ to someone else to post and maintain, as
> Lani did with the Tattoo FAQ in 1998, when I took it over. She has
> maintained a 'dog in the manger' attitude throughout the whole thing.
OK. I'll send off a message to her this evening to note that her FAQ
appears to be dead, and asking if she'll confirm that status.
> As a result, a group of regulars has started writing a new piercing
> FAQ, but we need to know what is necessary to declare this to be the
> new 'official' FAQ for the group. I'm sure we could hold a vote and
> declare it so, but how to we handle this as far as the archivers?
The first point to note is that there is never any such thing as an official
FAQ (except in some very restricted circumstances), but other people on this
list have gone into that issue in some detail.
The second point is that the *.answers moderators cannot get involved in
internal newsgroup disputes. If a newsgroup has schismed into factions it's
not our place to try and mediate which has the more right to post a FAQ:
we'll just approve them all (approval is based on form, not content, &c, &c)
and let readers work it out.
The third thing is that there's nothing to stop you choosing a different
archive-name for your new FAQ: that doesn't make it any less 'official'
and we're quite happy to allow multiple FAQs in the same newsgroups on the
same topics. It might create a certain confusion for people looking through
FAQ archives, but it should be immediately apparent that the old FAQ hasn't
been updated since 1999 and the new FAQ has.
However, clearly (and understandably) in this case you want to use the same
archive-name. This is easy if the old maintainer is prepared to have her
FAQ declared dead and to surrender the archive-name.
If she's not, I'm not sure exactly what approach would be taken. Our rules
suggest that we can take action to declare a FAQ dead if it has not been
posted for a set period of time (related to its posting frequency) and we
are unable to contact the maintainer to confirm its status. However, I'll
have to leave a more senior moderator to explain what might happen if a
maintainer refuses to have his/her FAQ declared dead despite its abandonment.
All in all I suggest we cross that bridge as and when we come to it.
Cheers,
Nick
-- Life is pain, Highness! Anyone who says differently it selling something. -- Westley, "The Princess Bride"************************************************************* 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