Re: Duellin' FAQtions: a solution?

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Pres Nevins writes ...
> 
> I've been lurking here for one, count 'em, one day, and am already amazed...
>

     Many long-time csa2 readers have been pretty amazed, too!
 
 
> ....
> I did a web search, and found an old copy of the csa2 FAQ, and said, "hey,
> I'll go get the latest version! And while I'm at it, for Apple ][
> information that sounds like the place to be!"
> 
> And guess what I run smack dab into?
> 
> Now let me try to summarize the situation, from the point-of-view of
> someone with no connection to any of the parties involved.
> 
>  o   The FAQ is not available.
> 
>  o   The FAQ is not just unavailable, it is apparently being held hostage
> by, of all people, the FAQ maintainer himself!
> 
> ....

     Essentially, you've got it.
     

> From this, I see several conclusions that can be drawn:
> 
>  o   For whatever reasons, the current FAQ maintainer is unwilling to do
> the job he's been entrusted with.
>  o   The newsgroup needs a FAQ.
>     o   Specifically, _I_ need a FAQ! (:
>     o   Presumably there are other people lurking who have been similarly
> inconvenienced.

     Indeed, there are. My email leaves little room for doubt.


>  o This can be resolved one of two ways:
>     o   The current FAQ maintainer can release the FAQ to the newsgroup.
>     o   A new FAQ maintainer(s) can be chosen (or can volunteer).
> 
> Either way, a FAQ must be regularly posted to the newsgroup.
>

     Actually, regular posting of the FAQ's to csa2 is not, strictly speaking, 
required of the FAQ Keeper. What is required is that access to the FAQ's via a 
site on the internet be free, open, and unrestricted to _all_ users.

 
> The first option is dependent on the FAQ maintainer giving up his
> determination to have this other guy disappear.

     That would entail a surprising leap in maturity. For now, it is 
sufficient that the idea of using our FAQ's as a weapon be abandoned.


> If he does relent, we can
> all benefit from having access to what is apparently a pretty good FAQ. We
> will all appreciate his efforts, and be the richer for it.
>

     True. This is the outcome which many csa2 members have desired.

 
> .... Constructing a new FAQ would no doubt involve some redundancy, but with 
> the old FAQ unavailable, there's little choice.

     Yes; using the old FAQ's or some shuffled-around version is not very 
satisfactory. It will be best to produce a new, expanded FAQ's.
 

> No matter what, this new
> neutral FAQ should be clearly marked in some way as being the collective
> property of the newsgroup, or otherwise make it clear that distribution is
> not to be bottlenecked, or we'll risk a repeat of the current situation.
>

     For sure we do not wish to repeat the current ridiculous situation. The 
new FAQ's would be uploaded to several sites and be available for unrestricted 
downloading as well as posting to csa2. The bottleneck would be forever 
broken.


> ....
> One way or another, it'd be good for the newsgroup to
> decentralize control in whatever ways we can. ....
>

     Yes. It is taking far too long to settle a situation for which the 
options and outcomes were always clear. Perhaps the still-current FAQ Keeper 
will 'see the light'; perhaps not. Soon, it may not matter. In any case, it 
seems obvious that members can no longer permit limiting csa2's FAQ's to a 
single site.


Rubywand