RFD: FAQ newsgroup

[Steve Summit]

[Crossposted to comp.lang.c for interest; followups to news.groups .]

In article <0rcg6j- at rpi.edu> glenns at eas.gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone) writes:
>This is a formal RFD for a group in which to crosspost FAQ lists. 
>     "A newsgroup devoted to assembling various Frequently Asked
>      Question (and answer) lists (FAQ's) in one place for 
>      ease of reference and archival."  
>
>...the demand for the group is clear, so let's go ahead and do it ...

Someone is going to have to explain to me, in a little more
detail, what the proposed group is supposed to accomplish and
what needs it is intended to fulfill.  Just saying "assembling
various FAQ lists in one place for ease of reference and
archival" doesn't tell me much.  Who will this group serve?  Who
will read it, when, and why?

I can't imagine sending someone with a question off to news.faq
(or whatever) to find an answer.  Rather than saying "Go to news.faq
and read the comp.lang.c frequently-asked questions list," it's
equivalent to say "Go to comp.lang.c and read the frequently-asked
questions list."

The proposed charter mentions "ease of archival," suggesting that
the group might never be read by people, but just groveled over
by archive servers.

Perhaps it is intended as a place where curious readers can
browse, sort of like a "Usenet Greatest Hits Album."  I suppose
this idea has possibilities, but consider that there are an awful
lot of newsgroups, and some rather surprisingly esoteric ones
have long FAQ lists, so the signal/noise ratio in even a
definitively accurate FAQ group is still going to be low for any
individual browser.  (Splitting it up into comp.faq, rec.faq,
etc. would help.)

As an FAQ list maintainer myself, there are two things I haven't had
an avenue for, which an FAQ newsgroup could conceivably provide:

     1.	A place for meta-discussions about the FAQ lists themselves.

     2.	A place to post "long-form" versions of the FAQ list,
	PostScript versions, etc.

There has been remarkably little meta-discussion about the
comp.lang.c FAQ list, and it has been carried out adequately by
private email.  Obviously an FAQ newsgroup spanning many groups
couldn't accommodate meta-discussions about specific lists,
particularly if the FAQ newsgroup were moderated.

The need for a place to post "long-form" and PostScript versions
simply reflects the fact that they are essentially source
postings, which are too bulky for the associated group, but which
aren't appropriate for any of the existing source newsgroups,
either.  Actually, mailservers and/or anonymous ftp would be fine
for access to these alternate versions, and I would have set one
up for the comp.lang.c FAQ list by now, except that adam.mit.edu
is neither "mine" to do that sort of thing with, nor reliable
enough, nor possessed of a high-bandwidth Internet connection.
(Someday this will change.)

Do the people who are struggling with a definition for
appropriate content for the new group think that alternate
versions (long form, PostScript, etc.), which are not posted to
the "original" group at all, would be appropriate?

All in all, I'm (obviously) pretty ambivalent about the idea of
an FAQ newsgroup.  If the group is formed, I won't mind
crossposting the comp.lang.c FAQ list to it.  But it will be very
important that the existence of the group not get in my way.  I'm
the stubborn and individualistic sort, and I put time into
editing the comp.lang.c FAQ list, the way I want to, because I
want to.  There must not be any suggestion that the FAQ newsgroup
tell me what to do.

It is obvious that FAQ lists should be crossposted to their
respective groups and to any FAQ group.  Therefore, the FAQ group
must either be unmoderated, or jointly moderated by all the
contributing FAQ list editors, or (equivalently, I suppose) I
must be allowed to forge Approved: headers.  I can't have my
"publication schedule" dependent on some other moderator.

Secondly, I have a hunch that once we've got all the FAQ lists in
one neat pile, some small-minded consistency hobgoblin will
suggest how nice it would be if they were all formatted the same
way, too.  (Glenn didn't suggest this, and I haven't seen it come
up yet, but it will.)  As long as human readers can effectively
use the list I edit to answer their questions, I will have no
interest in making cosmetic modifications just to conform to
somebody's idea of a "standard style."

I'm sorry this sounds harsh or defensive and a bit sarcastic or
snide.  It is not my intent to flame the idea of an FAQ newsgroup --
if the net collectively decides it's a good idea, that's fine.  I
may even find use for it myself.  But, again, it is very important
that it not constrain the activities of its contributors -- the
FAQ list editors -- in any way.  I would hate to see the proposed
group "formalize" FAQ lists sufficiently that people not only
take them for granted, but start insisting on certain things from
them, so that I end up getting flamed at the way Rich Salz gets
flamed at for not "doing my job."  (No, the situations aren't
completely equivalent, but there are certainly parallels.)

                                            Steve Summit
                                            scs at adam.mit.edu