Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Christoph M. Becker" Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: FAQ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 00:54:07 +0200 Organization: solani.org Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <8abf830c-8a3d-432e-8414-fe5f9c48cedf@googlegroups.com> <3372847.a2fWeYv6oO@PointedEars.de> <4eo1v9l8gioi5d84rke20k9kqanibv3sam@4ax.com> <3v14v9pvipcu07kgkpp85qbrmt8j56h59c@4ax.com> <7uq6v95g0mes9jfrjvr1r7fb664dcmqvdh@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: solani.org 1408575240 20862 eJwFwYEBwCAIA7CXcJQi5wiz/59gEs7FSTCIUMh4FbmmRfoY1Sgh7fgtWPtUyz7sA99/xX4dyRDd (20 Aug 2014 22:54:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.solani.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 22:54:00 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 X-User-ID: eJwNx8EBwCAIA8CViiUBxsEo+4/Q3u/w0qhwgo7BTOouPTdKTayNcxhZ/yB4W9RWLUe1ZSjtAyrgERw= In-Reply-To: <7uq6v95g0mes9jfrjvr1r7fb664dcmqvdh@4ax.com> Cancel-Lock: sha1:NzDCAJNTXx7YxpKOFqTMprjrHWg= X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwFwQkBwDAIA0BLfAlUDivDv4Tewam8GQQDiy26fTu5Jh0Vmk3vwW+b0tMCUZRizz1qk3wVHBCc Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:25716 John Harris wrote: > On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 22:38:23 +0200, "Christoph M. Becker" > wrote: > >> The current way is professional enough for me; you can always go to >> to view >> the changelog. If any particular change is not welcome, it can still be >> discussed, and I'm pretty sure that Thomas will revert it, if there is >> broad consensus in the group. >> >> The great advantage of the current approach: a proposed change (often >> only fixing a typo or a broken link) will not have to wait forever. > > You seem to confuse approval with discussion & comments. If there's a > disagreement it's then the editor's job to do the appropriate action > in an unbiased way without undue delay. 'Action' can range all the way > from choosing the winning argument to removing an entire section from > the document. In theory I agree with you. However, what you are demanding can't be fulfilled, because there is no volunteer to do it--and beggars can't be choosers. In my opinion having an unmaintained FAQ is worse than having no FAQ at all. In your opinion it is the other way round. So let's save everybody's time and end this fruitless discussion. -- Christoph M. Becker