From: Brad Templeton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jul 27 1998 - 13:13:31 CDT
On Mon, Jul 27, 1998 at 10:02:07AM +0200, Maurizio Codogno wrote:
> In <email@example.com> Brad says:
> > >
> > > If we could manage to have pseudo-immortal articles, I wouldn't mind
> > > if there are 100 of them. It's always better than reading (and
> > > transmitting!) them each week because of low persistence.
> > That's fine, but it's not the only way. In some groups they will want
> > "the FAQ" and not allow anybody to arbitrarily replace it with theirs.
> > In some groups people will not want that.
> leaving aside what John already commented (that is, I think it's much
> better to have many different FAQs from different people rather than
> to start a "Supersedes war"), my personal opinion is that, if there
> is some group in which people do not want more than one FAQ, that group
> has to be moderated. (in it., actually, only the moderator may give
> her blessing of approval to a FAQ...)
That is how it works today. My whole point is that today there are
two choices, no security and the total control of moderation. This
does not meet people's needs and desires. In some groups anybody can
do a monthly posting, in some you might want only one person.
But other useful named articles like the "Display this to new users of the
group" or "Display this when the user asks for the charter of the group"
can't have more than one.