Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Jukka K. Korpela" Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:17:46 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <46247081-75ce-430c-8319-459ddcdf17fe@bx4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <8784c16d-0661-4482-a79b-75007745b1cb@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 14:17:42 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9e0ae8574c58208bf47738e1c9986fe4"; logging-data="6749"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/olKCOjPytHsUXG1kwGas1" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 121130-1, 30.11.2012), Outbound message Cancel-Lock: sha1:0nleAppofkON75Vf0SwafyNjAvQ= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:17394 2012-11-30 21:23, Matt McDonald wrote: > On Thu, 22 Nov 2012, jim.ley@gmail.com wrote: > >> The problem has always been finding a maintainer with the time... > > Thomas has my explicit support. His extensive technical depth is > befitting of the role of FAQ maintainer. You can't be serious. An ability to write long lectures on off-topic matters does not mean extensive technical depth, especially when their content is often wrong. And a FAQ maintainer does not need extensive technical depth. The essential qualifications are quite different. Most definitely he should not think that he has extensive and superior technical depth. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/