Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.datemas.de!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, 04 Sep 2014 02:15:39 +0200 Organization: solani.org Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <8abf830c-8a3d-432e-8414-fe5f9c48cedf@googlegroups.com> <3372847.a2fWeYv6oO@PointedEars.de> <4eo1v9l8gioi5d84rke20k9kqanibv3sam@4ax.com> <3v14v9pvipcu07kgkpp85qbrmt8j56h59c@4ax.com> <4956895.fegKf5NamY@PointedEars.de> <2883408.2Bc1n28egQ@PointedEars.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: solani.org 1409789730 23661 eJwFwYcBwDAIA7CXTBgJ57iM/0+o5BoSdS08zNeX/cAsTc3WofKIwuLtUIDO4ndhxBkhivUDH2URZg== (4 Sep 2014 00:15:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.solani.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 00:15:30 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 X-User-ID: eJwNxsEBwCAIA8CVqhCEcQJt9h+hvu5gsWKOB8IhiNuNzr7MNrhcJ8lbPc2yF71yvoR2JKt+GPcQ/Q== In-Reply-To: <2883408.2Bc1n28egQ@PointedEars.de> Cancel-Lock: sha1:NIwyvfUgTIgZu8BNE6iYXoMB9Dk= X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwFwYEBwDAEBMCV+nhhHBL2H6F3VIffY043Lnf6BS57DKEqy5zqIvd9CUBSTrVGBsUqXX8i+BCl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:25817 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Christoph M. Becker wrote: > > You have suggested elsewhere in this thread that I would make all changes to > the FAQ for comp.lang.javascript unilaterally and revert/modify them later > only upon sufficient protest here. IIRC, I did not -- I least I did not meant to. You may be referring to , but there I meant to refer to changes that did already happen, and to minor changes that may happen in the future. > No offense meant. However, it is the “enough” in that statement that > matters. If something is important enough, one *makes* time to do it. > I am no exception there. No offense taken. :) > IIRC, there is *one person* openly objecting to that approach, or rather to > the person who follows it, and whether the former one can be called a > regular of this newsgroup at all is debatable. However, there were *only three* people involved in the latest discussion regarding the FAQ. > I find it rather surprising > that you think they are that important for this newsgroup to merit any > derious, extended discussion with them. A regular would contribute on-topic > information to the newsgroup on a regular basis; Perhaps I have misinterpreted the term "regular". At least until now I would have defined it simply as "someone who posts regularly" (potentially including even trolls). >> * Who would be entitled to vote? > > It would have to be either everyone or no-one. However, I am not aware of > any newsgroup FAQ whose content was decided by public vote, including the > current one. Given that there will always be few who know what they are > talking about, and many who do not, that is probably good so. ACK. However, who's to judge? >> * Do changes to FAQ require a simple majority, or a supermajority? >> * What would be the rules for three options (keep, remove, improve)? >> * ... > > I have overlooked the Sarcasm Sign[tm] again, have I not? I find it rather natural to be cynical when it comes to these discussions regarding the FAQ *again*. They come up from time to time since years without any consensus -- and lately without even broad participation. :( -- Christoph M. Becker