Irrwahn Grausewitz wrote:
> [...]
> However, the 1999 text version of the FAQ is posted monthly
> to (not only) this group, last on 2004-02-01:
Yes, and the 5-year discrepancy doesn't seem to strike many people here
as particularly bothersome, I noticed.
Best regards,
Sidney
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Cadot wrote:
>
> Irrwahn Grausewitz wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > However, the 1999 text version of the FAQ is posted monthly
> > to (not only) this group, last on 2004-02-01:
>
> Yes, and the 5-year discrepancy doesn't seem to strike
> many people here as particularly bothersome, I noticed.
The fundamental problem with maintaining the FAQ,
is that it's a lot of work.
Vijay Kumar R Zanvar has taken the correct approach.
He wrote a FAQ, and posted it.
--
pete
-----------------------------------------------------------------
pete wrote:
> Sidney Cadot wrote:
>
>>Irrwahn Grausewitz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[...]
>>
>>>However, the 1999 text version of the FAQ is posted monthly
>>>to (not only) this group, last on 2004-02-01:
>>
>>Yes, and the 5-year discrepancy doesn't seem to strike
>>many people here as particularly bothersome, I noticed.
>
>
> The fundamental problem with maintaining the FAQ,
> is that it's a lot of work.
Well, that's one explanation for the 5-year discrepancy.
> Vijay Kumar R Zanvar has taken the correct approach.
> He wrote a FAQ, and posted it.
Yes, and just griping about it (like I do) isn't, you seem to imply.
Please spell it out for me, I'm terrible at reading between the lines.
I say, first things first. Let's first establish there /is/ a problem.
What surprises me is that many here cannot get themself to acknowledge
even that (or so it seems).
After that, it's best if we can mend the current situation, by improving
the current FAQ (with Steve's help or permission).
If that turns out to be impossible, then an effort /could/ be started to
produce an independent FAQ, if the community thinks it would be
worthwhile. I, for one, would be quite willing to invest some time to
write some questions and answers, and also to do some review work. But
it's too early to have a head-count.
Best regards,
Sidney
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Cadot wrote:
>
> pete wrote:
>
> > Sidney Cadot wrote:
> >
> >>Irrwahn Grausewitz wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>[...]
> >>
> >>>However, the 1999 text version of the FAQ is posted monthly
> >>>to (not only) this group, last on 2004-02-01:
> >>
> >>Yes, and the 5-year discrepancy doesn't seem to strike
> >>many people here as particularly bothersome, I noticed.
> >
> >
> > The fundamental problem with maintaining the FAQ,
> > is that it's a lot of work.
>
> Well, that's one explanation for the 5-year discrepancy.
>
> > Vijay Kumar R Zanvar has taken the correct approach.
> > He wrote a FAQ, and posted it.
>
> Yes, and just griping about it (like I do) isn't, you seem to imply.
> Please spell it out for me, I'm terrible at reading between the lines.
It's something like that.
Vijay Kumar R Zanvar is addressing the fundamental problem directly.
Who else besides him, should be working on a new FAQ ?
--
pete
-----------------------------------------------------------------
pete wrote:
> It's something like that.
> Vijay Kumar R Zanvar is addressing the fundamental problem directly.
> Who else besides him, should be working on a new FAQ ?
As I explained in my previous post, I think you're jumping the gun.
We're not at the stage of having to answer this question by a long way,
and we will hopefully avoid getting there.
Best regards,
Sidney
(
geocities.com/vijoeyz/faq) (
geocities.com/vijoeyz)