Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision

From: graeme@discreet.co.uk (Graeme Griffiths)

Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000

In <19970702153801.LAA15318@ladder01.news.aol.com> soliiigm@aol.com
   (Sol III GM) writes:

>Graeme Griffiths said:
>>soliiigm@aol.com (Sol III GM) writes:
>>>  Please now that you have read it, post your vote here.  If the margin
>is
>>>great enough, and the votes numerous enough, we might see this whole
>>>argument laid to rest instead of having to re-fight it every 6 months.
>>
>>Nice, FAQ revision, sadly let down by your complete lack of knowledge of
>how
>>Usenet works. "Please ... post you vote" you really are a dork aren't
>you.

>  Actually, I have been on Usenet pretty solidly for two years, and off
>and on for two years before that.

I didn't state you were inexperienced, just a dork.

>  Before I posted this, I read up on
>everything that I could find on Usenet proceedures.  There *is no
>proceedure listed in any FAQ in the news.* groups that I could find*.  In
>fact, several of them went out of their way to say that there was no
>proceedure, since Usenet is not a democracy, and no vote is binding.
>  In other words, I do understand how Usenet works, I know that the
>general tradition (and it's only a tradition since there is no set
>proceedure here) is that such votes are conducted via E-Mail, and that
>further, the tradition is that some people will ignore the results of such
>votes no matter how overwhelming the majority is.
>  I will be happy to run this as an E-Mail vote if Greg will agree to
>abide by the results.

Now, heres what I've always thought about FAQ changes :

FAQs are _maintained_ by a single individual but they are contributed by a
committee (i.e. the group). Some kind sole (Greg in this case) attempts to
collate all the information on the group in a single document so we don't
have to rehash all the arguments (this one included) every time a new user
appears.

So how do you change the FAQ ? Well I'd have thought it was fairly obvious
that you have to contact the moderator and point out whats missing/
innaccurate and propose a change. At this point you are at the mercy of the
moderator but most (and Greg is in this category even after you have
completely and publicly abused him) will take the change on board and hash
it into the FAQ. If they disagree they'll probably discuss their opinion on
the change over Email and hopefully you can come to some agreement and issue
a new rev of the FAQ with everyone happy.

Of course you may feel aggreived that your change was not accepted, in which
case you can either kick up a fuss by posting your argument or you can issue
your own (mini-)FAQ with your opinions in it. Beleive me, if they don't
represent the views of the group you'll soon know about it. Similarly if we
don't think it portrays a different enough view we'll point that out and
then we get to argue over email to get you to change/withdraw your FAQ.

This is how it works. Of course theres the obvious problem of what happens
if someone refuses to let it lie when they are blatantly off-the-mark but
that rarely happens. Few people are brass-necked enough to stick it out
against the wishes of the group (and their ISP could be informed of the
argument and asked to step in, their reaction to this would be difficult to
gauge).

Your constant use of the words "official procedure" shows a lack of
understanding of the medium "accepted use" is more accurate. There are no
rules, there is no governing body all there is is people like Greg helping
out. What I find offensive about everything you've posted on this issue is
that you constantly attack Greg for no reason other than the fact that you
dislike his attitude. Greg gives his time and experience for free, and
whenever he attempts to answer his critics he gets flamed for "sniping". One
voice against many sounds like he's wrong. He never has been, he has been
mis-represented, and I personally felt the scare-mongering of the "threat"
to advertise for all the game compamies who couldn't do it themselves was a
little rash but it did make a valid point.

>>NOTE: DO NOT POST VOTES ON THIS ISSUE. Its a huge waste of bandwidth.

>  If you feel it's a waste of bandwidth, E-Mail me your vote, as several
>people already have.  I am saving all E-Mail related to this thread
>already, and will be happy to post the full results.

Oh no, I'm wrong sorry. Its not a huge waste of bandwidth to reproduce
thousands of copies of posts saying (effectively) "Me too". Thats never been
a problem on Usenet, you carry right on. And, yes, that was sarcasm.

My vote, FWIW, is that you take this up with Greg. Like you should have done
in the first place. The rest of us will watch with anticipation for the next
version of the FAQ.

--
Graeme Griffiths - Discreet Logic (Newbury, UK)
Disclaimer: I do not speak for anyone but myself and I do that badly.
Mail: graeme@discreet.co.uk
Spam: All unsolicited mail will be reported, and billed for my time.

References

Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
graeme@discreet.co.uk (Graeme Griffiths)
Wed, 02 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
soliiigm@aol.com (Sol III GM)
Wed, 02 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
graeme@discreet.co.uk (Graeme Griffiths)
Wed, 02 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
soliiigm@aol.com (Sol III GM)
Wed, 02 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000