> Well, in this case, she started with an existing FAQ, and rewrote it from
> the ground up. 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 ....
This is one of several reasons why, a year or two ago, I started asking people
to add a disclaimer saying that approval for *.answers is based on form, not
content. So there's no sense in which we ever bless something as the
"official" FAQ for a newsgroup.
> ... and have hers declared dead?
If we receive a complaint that a faq is "out of date" or "dead" we try to
contact the maintainer of record for status. If that mail bounces, we "mark
the FAQ dead" which means it's still in our records but doesn't get included
in the published "List of Periodic Information Postings".
The dead FAQ stays in our archives, though, under its old archive name. A
couple of years ago I started a discussion labeled "4 stages of FAQ death",
the consensus of which was NOT to delete "dead" FAQS from the archive.
In the past, if an old maintainer never replied to our prompts we let the new
people re-use the old archive name. In your case if the maintainer does
reply, and wants to keep her FAQ, you'd just need a new archive name.
*************************************************************
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