Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

At 11:39 AM 28/07/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>>Factual information is neutral, its human manager(s)
>>may not be.
>
>The answer to that problem is not "elections."

I was suggesting only that, *if* there was a FAQ
maintainer position, then that position *could*
be elected.

>... and sometimes you have FAQs which contradict
>each other, for good reason.  That's the approach
>to take.

I pointed out that there are often dueling Usenet FAQs.
I have seen that done well, and done badly. If the
intent is to bring newbies up to speed, one doesn't
want a situation where they just become further
confused.

Of course most good FAQs urge newbies to lurk awhile.
I was on the netsol domain policy list for a year
before I said anything. Approximately ditto for here,
I think. Most folks shouldn't require anywhere near
that long to be able to post without looking clueless,
some might argue I required more. :)

>Writing FAQs is essentially a volunteer's job.

Agreed. And hopefully someone or few could take
it on, either collaboratively, complementarily,
or even competitively. There are already various
good sources out there, perhaps a compendium along
the lines of a list of lists might be a good
starting point.

>If the information is useless or wrong or misleading,
>someone else will speak up.  If the information is
>good, you end up as being "the authoritative source"
>about some topic area.

I agree completely. I think in general the internet
works better as a meritocracy than a democracy. For
example, I could care less about the existence of
elected BoD positions if ICANN had earned merit. -g

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html