V
VK
As I'm still in Europe with rather occasional Internet access, I
originally missed a few weeks old discussion about FAQ posting and
update.
While making my program for automated FAQ posting, I've made some
research on the FAQ question. That time the program was not used by the
FAQ poster, but I kept the article on my laptop. I see the moment now
to post it.
-------------
As it is (or isn't) known, Big Seven's Usenet groups do not have
*official* FAQ or sites or links. The only official parts are
Rationale, Charter and Short Description. These parts are formed before
voting and stored (if passed) in <news.announce.newgroups> archives for
public references.
It is also a rule that the above mentioned documents (Rationale,
Charter, Short Description) are made on the "Once in - Never out"
principles. Once passed the voting and approved they never can be
changed: a new newsgroup must be created instead if needed. This is the
rule of the classic Usenet (at least): groups are not "updating" with
time. They are appearing and disappearing (if no activity) based on the
current demand.
In this concern comp.lang.javascript exists with more than 10 years old
charter and still fully within of it and it doesn't lack posting
activity My sincere congratulations.
Any other resources related to a newsgroup - including FAQ - are
subjects of the public consensus and the newsgroup's traditions. For
older newsgroup traditions possibly have even more weight than some "up
to time consensus". It means that legally anyone can start posting
something called "official FAQ", but in application to clj it would be
a bogus to be killfiled.
The creation of comp.lang.javascript had been initialized by Thomas
Winzig in December of 1995. The standard voting process has been
conducted in January 1996. By the majority of votes the new group was
approved January 27 1996
A side note: on January 27 of each year it could a "birthday posting"
All results of the voting process are stored at
<news.announce.newgroups> It can be viewed say at
<http://groups.google.com/group/news..._frm/thread/e472637f7141a60d/1cfd3fc1b03fd982>
Right after the creation the newsgroup did not have any explicit
leader. AFAICT the main and only purpose of Thomas Winzig was to get
rid of JavaScript questions in Java-related newsgroups. He did not
participate much in clj any after.
In April of 1996 Gordon McComb created a page called "unofficial FAQ"
and he started to provide links to it in his posts. Unfortunately this
page located at <http://www.freqgrafx.com/411/jsfaq.html> was not
preserved.
In the end of May of 1996 Erica L. Sadun created a document called "The
JavaScript FAQlet" using her own experience and partially materials of
Gordon McComb. She started to post "The JavaScript FAQlet" in clj
rather regularly but without any fixed schedule. The original version
can be viewed at
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...9ef24?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#5c0e0aa2b389ef24>
By the end of summer of 1996 Erica stopped her postings and then
Michael Moncur created the revised version called "comp.lang.javascript
Mini-FAQ". He started to post this document weekly by Saturdays.
April 1998 Christopher Thompson restored the regularity of postings. He
created fully revisited version called "comp.lang.javascript meta-FAQ".
The current clj FAQ (after eight major updates) still keeps the
structure of Thomson's document. The original beta version can be
viewed at
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...c532a?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#50ff3fd5ae5c532a>
February 1999 Thompson asked for volunteers to take over the FAQ
posting and maintenance. Jim Ley called for this, he also donated space
on jibbering.com for FAQ storage. The first FAQ post under the name of
Jim Ley was made October of 1999. Since November of 1999 the FAQ posted
with sender name "comp.lang.javascript FAQ" (no more individual names).
January 2004 Jim Ley asked for volunteers to take over the FAQ
maintenance. Richard Cornford called for this. March 2004 Richard
Cornford released next major update #8. The current FAQ version is 8.1,
so there were not any major updates for 2.5 years by now.
Prieure de comp.lang.javascript FAQ (to Dan Brown with all my
disrespect
Gordon McComb | Apr 1996 - June 1996 | "unofficial FAQ"
Erica L. Sadun | June 1996 - Aug 1996 | "The JavaScript FAQlet"
Michael Moncur | Aug 1996 - Mar 1998 | "comp.lang.javascript Mini-FAQ"
Christopher Thompson | Apr 1998 - Feb 1999 | "comp.lang.javascript
meta-FAQ"
Jim Ley | Feb 1999 - Jan 2004 | "comp.lang.javascript META-FAQ"
Richard Cornford | Jan 2004 - now | "comp.lang.javascript FAQ"
someone else. Jim Ley (despite still active participant of clj) should
stay with his decision of Jan 2004 and avoid putting any pressure.
At the same time I would like to remind to Mr.Cornford that his duty is
to be a FAQ *maintainer* and not a *FAQ archives keeper*. The Internet
does the latter automatically without any extra help.
The best way IMHO to move the FAQ out of the current stagnation:
The whole procedure of adding/updating/removing FAQENTRY's has to be
much stricter defined and narrowed. It is not good enough that 1-2-3
people - however "oldposting" and knowlegeable they are - are saying
"it is not a FAQ" or "it is wrong".
That must be a well-defined amount of similar questions within a month
that makes it to be a FAQ. It is completely *out* of the public
interest what does the current FAQ maintainer think of such question:
is it a "good question" or she would rather kill whoever is asking it.
It is irrelevant. She is only in power to decide where to add the new
FAQENTRY and what other FAQENTRY to remove if needed to keep the FAQ
list compact.
After a new FAQENTRY is defined it must be a public discussion for the
best answer to the question. This discussion i) should not take forever
and ii) must be the best *practical* answer to a practical question.
Evangelistic narrations of type "don't use it", "don't do it", "it's
useless" etc must be kept exclusively for private posts and blogs.
Until this ussue is not solved, the frequency and the mechanics of the
FAQ posting is not really so important.
originally missed a few weeks old discussion about FAQ posting and
update.
While making my program for automated FAQ posting, I've made some
research on the FAQ question. That time the program was not used by the
FAQ poster, but I kept the article on my laptop. I see the moment now
to post it.
-------------
As it is (or isn't) known, Big Seven's Usenet groups do not have
*official* FAQ or sites or links. The only official parts are
Rationale, Charter and Short Description. These parts are formed before
voting and stored (if passed) in <news.announce.newgroups> archives for
public references.
It is also a rule that the above mentioned documents (Rationale,
Charter, Short Description) are made on the "Once in - Never out"
principles. Once passed the voting and approved they never can be
changed: a new newsgroup must be created instead if needed. This is the
rule of the classic Usenet (at least): groups are not "updating" with
time. They are appearing and disappearing (if no activity) based on the
current demand.
In this concern comp.lang.javascript exists with more than 10 years old
charter and still fully within of it and it doesn't lack posting
activity My sincere congratulations.
Any other resources related to a newsgroup - including FAQ - are
subjects of the public consensus and the newsgroup's traditions. For
older newsgroup traditions possibly have even more weight than some "up
to time consensus". It means that legally anyone can start posting
something called "official FAQ", but in application to clj it would be
a bogus to be killfiled.
The creation of comp.lang.javascript had been initialized by Thomas
Winzig in December of 1995. The standard voting process has been
conducted in January 1996. By the majority of votes the new group was
approved January 27 1996
A side note: on January 27 of each year it could a "birthday posting"
All results of the voting process are stored at
<news.announce.newgroups> It can be viewed say at
<http://groups.google.com/group/news..._frm/thread/e472637f7141a60d/1cfd3fc1b03fd982>
Right after the creation the newsgroup did not have any explicit
leader. AFAICT the main and only purpose of Thomas Winzig was to get
rid of JavaScript questions in Java-related newsgroups. He did not
participate much in clj any after.
In April of 1996 Gordon McComb created a page called "unofficial FAQ"
and he started to provide links to it in his posts. Unfortunately this
page located at <http://www.freqgrafx.com/411/jsfaq.html> was not
preserved.
In the end of May of 1996 Erica L. Sadun created a document called "The
JavaScript FAQlet" using her own experience and partially materials of
Gordon McComb. She started to post "The JavaScript FAQlet" in clj
rather regularly but without any fixed schedule. The original version
can be viewed at
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...9ef24?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#5c0e0aa2b389ef24>
By the end of summer of 1996 Erica stopped her postings and then
Michael Moncur created the revised version called "comp.lang.javascript
Mini-FAQ". He started to post this document weekly by Saturdays.
April 1998 Christopher Thompson restored the regularity of postings. He
created fully revisited version called "comp.lang.javascript meta-FAQ".
The current clj FAQ (after eight major updates) still keeps the
structure of Thomson's document. The original beta version can be
viewed at
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...c532a?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#50ff3fd5ae5c532a>
February 1999 Thompson asked for volunteers to take over the FAQ
posting and maintenance. Jim Ley called for this, he also donated space
on jibbering.com for FAQ storage. The first FAQ post under the name of
Jim Ley was made October of 1999. Since November of 1999 the FAQ posted
with sender name "comp.lang.javascript FAQ" (no more individual names).
January 2004 Jim Ley asked for volunteers to take over the FAQ
maintenance. Richard Cornford called for this. March 2004 Richard
Cornford released next major update #8. The current FAQ version is 8.1,
so there were not any major updates for 2.5 years by now.
Prieure de comp.lang.javascript FAQ (to Dan Brown with all my
disrespect
Gordon McComb | Apr 1996 - June 1996 | "unofficial FAQ"
Erica L. Sadun | June 1996 - Aug 1996 | "The JavaScript FAQlet"
Michael Moncur | Aug 1996 - Mar 1998 | "comp.lang.javascript Mini-FAQ"
Christopher Thompson | Apr 1998 - Feb 1999 | "comp.lang.javascript
meta-FAQ"
Jim Ley | Feb 1999 - Jan 2004 | "comp.lang.javascript META-FAQ"
Richard Cornford | Jan 2004 - now | "comp.lang.javascript FAQ"
Cornford has moral rights to maintain FAQ or to transfer this duty toFrom this rather long preface it should be clear that only Richard
someone else. Jim Ley (despite still active participant of clj) should
stay with his decision of Jan 2004 and avoid putting any pressure.
At the same time I would like to remind to Mr.Cornford that his duty is
to be a FAQ *maintainer* and not a *FAQ archives keeper*. The Internet
does the latter automatically without any extra help.
The best way IMHO to move the FAQ out of the current stagnation:
The whole procedure of adding/updating/removing FAQENTRY's has to be
much stricter defined and narrowed. It is not good enough that 1-2-3
people - however "oldposting" and knowlegeable they are - are saying
"it is not a FAQ" or "it is wrong".
That must be a well-defined amount of similar questions within a month
that makes it to be a FAQ. It is completely *out* of the public
interest what does the current FAQ maintainer think of such question:
is it a "good question" or she would rather kill whoever is asking it.
It is irrelevant. She is only in power to decide where to add the new
FAQENTRY and what other FAQENTRY to remove if needed to keep the FAQ
list compact.
After a new FAQENTRY is defined it must be a public discussion for the
best answer to the question. This discussion i) should not take forever
and ii) must be the best *practical* answer to a practical question.
Evangelistic narrations of type "don't use it", "don't do it", "it's
useless" etc must be kept exclusively for private posts and blogs.
Until this ussue is not solved, the frequency and the mechanics of the
FAQ posting is not really so important.