Freshening the FAQ

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • Bob Nelson
    #1

    Freshening the FAQ

    The FAQ is about to reach its fourth year since the last update. Steve
    Summit's contributions to this newsgroup and C deserve our gratitude.

    But it is showing signs of age (such as noting ``Alta Vista'' as a search
    engine as opposed to not even mentioning the much more widely-used Google).
    There's still even a mention of ``archie'' (does anyone /still/ use that
    tool?)

    As mentioned in a thread from a year ago, the FAQ also has a number of dead
    links. ``Dragging the FAQ kicking and screaming into the 1990's'' is how
    Richard Heathfield phrased it.

    Presuming that Steve Summit has other obligations, could we (as a community
    of c.l.c. participants) brush up on SCS' existing body of work and bring it
    up to date. Knowing the need for immediacy of most newbies, those that are
    advised to read the FAQ may be discourged when they see a revision date of
    2004, regarded as ancient history in internet time.

    The core of the FAQ is still relevant (modulo a few C99 items). I'm not
    suggesting a rewrite -- maybe just a touch up in a manner that wouldn't
    usurp the intent of SCS.
    Tags: None
    • Richard Heathfield
      #2
      Re: Freshening the FAQ

      Bob Nelson said:

      <snip>
      The core of the FAQ is still relevant (modulo a few C99 items). I'm not
      suggesting a rewrite -- maybe just a touch up in a manner that wouldn't
      usurp the intent of SCS.
      It's a good idea, but there is a problem: intellectual property. I'm not
      saying that this problem is insurmountable, but it is certainly present.

      What we as a group might reasonably do is work on an upgrade, and present
      it to Steve for "adoption" at the end of the process. That way, his IP
      rights are not violated, we perhaps get a collective ACK in the
      appropriate section, and everyone gets a better FAQ.

      Issues:

      1) we would need Steve's permission up-front before even thinking about
      beginning to commence to make a start on this;
      2) how would disputes be resolved? If the clueless and the troll-like are
      denied a voice, they will complain that the process is undemocratic. And
      if they *are* allowed a voice, we end up with a broken FAQ. Even where
      genuinely competent people of good will disagree, that disagreement still
      needs to be resolved;
      3) how will Addison-Wesley feel about this?
      4) anything I didn't think of.

      --
      Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
      Email: -http://www. +rjh@
      Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
      "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

        Comment

        • rahul
          #3
          Re: Freshening the FAQ

          As you people have already mentioned that the core of the FAQ is still
          valid, we can bring up questions which need revision in the group
          itself. Based on discussions, the answers can be closed and with
          permission of Steve, can be appended to the original document.

            Comment

            • Flash Gordon
              #4
              Re: Freshening the FAQ

              Richard Heathfield wrote, On 02/06/08 06:32:
              Bob Nelson said:
              >
              <snip>
              >
              >The core of the FAQ is still relevant (modulo a few C99 items). I'm not
              >suggesting a rewrite -- maybe just a touch up in a manner that wouldn't
              >usurp the intent of SCS.
              >
              It's a good idea, but there is a problem: intellectual property. I'm not
              saying that this problem is insurmountable, but it is certainly present.
              >
              What we as a group might reasonably do is work on an upgrade, and present
              it to Steve for "adoption" at the end of the process. That way, his IP
              rights are not violated, we perhaps get a collective ACK in the
              appropriate section, and everyone gets a better FAQ.
              >
              Issues:
              >
              1) we would need Steve's permission up-front before even thinking about
              beginning to commence to make a start on this;
              Not necessarily a problem in terms of copyright. You are allowed to
              quote copyright material for the purpose of fair use including
              commenting on it, so you could certainly quote an individual
              question/answer and discuss what would be an improvement.
              2) how would disputes be resolved? If the clueless and the troll-like are
              denied a voice, they will complain that the process is undemocratic. And
              if they *are* allowed a voice, we end up with a broken FAQ. Even where
              genuinely competent people of good will disagree, that disagreement still
              needs to be resolved;
              That's easy (potentially), it is Steve's document so he obviously gets
              to decide what goes in any official version ;-)
              3) how will Addison-Wesley feel about this?
              See above.
              4) anything I didn't think of.
              5) Whether Steve will have time to review and incorporate any suggestions.
              --
              Flash Gordon

                Comment

                Previous template Next
                Working...