# # Since we are currently discussing the FAQ, I though I would repost my # original FAQ Anyone? post, with a few notes, and some of the # repititious stuff snipped. # # One of the points made in this post is that ole Ken, speaking # personally, had had quite enough of the 'let's talk about the FAQ' # arguments and just wanted to sit down and write the damn thing. # That remains how I feel. Recently mjcr and I have restated our # positions, we are clearly worlds apart, and I get the vague feeling # that people are sick of it. Well so am I. I was then, I am now. # So unless somebody turns this post into a thread, I'm going back # to hacking and posting linux advocacy. # # THE UFAQ HAS NEVER YET BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A FLAMEWAR, # but it is now under attack by a single individual who completely # rejects the open model of its development. I say that model # is sound, valid, and GOOD, it is producing a good document that # we should protect and encourage, no matter who maintains it. I # repeat that I will give up the maintainer's job to anyone who # will do it, as long as there is an open FAQ for me to contribute # to and quote from. If it will help to heal things, I will do it, # but I honestly believe that anyone who takes that job can expect # to get from mjcr what I am getting, because there is room in his # world for only one maintainer: him, and only one method: his. # # But, damnit, I say this. The Unauthorized FAQ is a GOOD THING. # There are 15 people on the credits, and that is only because I # missed some contributors early on. Isn't that something we should be # proud of? Doesn't that put the lie to the trolls who say that # COLA is a flamefest that can't produce anything? Should we not # protect this thing we have created together? Look through it and # see the compendium of pro-Linux facts we have developed and are # continuing to develop. I say it is alive and well, and that # we should not let it die in a flame-war.
# # So here is that post: #
I've noticed that attitudes towards the FAQ tend to break down as follows:
1) Trolls trash it. Well, they are trolls after all. Dismiss the subject move on.
2) Some regulars consider it irrelevant. Well, what the hell, this is Usenet, where does it say you are required to be interested in a FAQ?
3) Some regulars consider it a good idea, but believe the language is too strong, particularly the distinctions between 'Linux Advocates' and 'guests.' I happen to share that view.
<snip>
# # This next paragraph was my rough thinking at that time. It became, # at least for me, the very definition of the UFAQ, an open document, # in which anybody can contribute with no commitment at all. If you # have something to offer, offer it. If you want to give one sentence # and never be bothered again, nobody will ever bother you. #
And, finally again, many have suggested that a public discussion of the FAQ might lead to a document that people would actually contribute to. Public discussions can get awfully bogged down, but they can work, more on this in a minute.
# # Next we see my obvious displeasure with mjcr's way of doing # things. Hey, I said what I said, and I still feel the same way. #
So, below, I have posted the one draft of the 'intro stuff' that got the most support within the team before it dissolved over a certain person's thinking he was king or god or something.
# # What I was hoping for in this next paragraph actually happened, # that is why we have the UFAQ. #
I am posting it to see if enough people who are interested in helping out would actually say, 'it's good enough to stop fighting over, let's move past this charter stuff and start putting some actual Frequently Asked Questions into it.'
# # Here is the definition, such as it is, of the methodology. Anybody # contributes by posting. This paragraph is VERY important if you # want to understand the heavily clipped quote that mjcr has been # posting and reposting about my offer to surrender maintenance. # # Notice that PUBLICLY is IN CAPS, defining what the UFAQ has become. #
If we can get past the sticking point, which is the charter and conduct acceptable then I will volunteer to maintain any information that is submitted PUBLICLY. So let's say you've compiled a bunch of links and some explanation of something like fonts, which is a frequently discussed topic. You post it here. Anybody who can correct or add *facts* replies. Unless somebody can point out seriously factual errors, I'll just copy it in and post it the next week. If I miss something, just post a reply to the FAQ saying, 'hey dummy, you missed my nify post on CD Burners, you brain-dead or something?' and I'll look it up on Google and do some copy and paste.
# # This next paragraph, if quoted out of context, means nothing. Read the # paragraph above if you want to understand this one. Watch the UFAQ # develop week after week if you want to understand what it means # to maintain a public FAQ. # # What mjcr wants, in continually quoting this paragraph out of context, # is for the public development of the project to stop. I will not # let that happen as long as people continue to contribute to it. # # If I were to change this statement now, I might say that I won't fight # anybody who carries the goodwill of the group and is willing to take # the load. #
And, if anyone else wants to maintain it, I won't fight you for it. You get a pat on the back and a hearty thank-you.
# # Well, here is where I get myself into trouble. The COLA FAQ and # Primer never got past the flame wars it generated over the Conduct # Acceptable section. Now mjcr has brought those flames to the # UFAQ, which has /never/ /suffered/ /such/ /things/. I don't want # his flamewars at my party. #
As for mjcr's document, well, who cares. As much work as I put into it, I recognize that it is only a magnet for flame wars. It's a shame. Well, time to try again.
# # Next was the first real challenge for the UFAQ. It turned out # to be nothing. We moved immediately into development: #
OK, so the only real problem I see is that we are stuck on this charter and conduct acceptable thing. We all hate the trolls, we wish they would go away, but obviously they will not. What really kills me is that we spend so much time on them, which to me means they win. I personally am just much more interested in talking about Linux. So here is the post. If just a few people can say 'good enough', then maybe we can get past it. If some major parts are missing, post a reply with what you think they should be. If nobody flames you, what the hell, we put it in.
# # AFIAK, the issue stated in this next paragraph died altogether. # Nobody ever responds any more to part 1, suggesting the issue has # long since been settled. #
Also, if somebody really really feels strongly that the content should be stronger, well, shoot, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you can link up with mj, his content is pretty strong. Or maybe you can maintain another FAQ. If we're going to have two, why not three
Now, my last comment before the actual post. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE understand that we all basically love to argue. Political opinions here range from Libertarian to Marxist. What I'm trying to say is that getting us all to completely agree on anything except that we like Linux is simply impossible. If we go for that, we will fail. If, on the other hand, we can give the submission below a little thought and say, 'Will the world come to and end if we can settle this and move on?' and then a few people give it the thumbs up, then maybe we can actually move on and produce a real resource for the community. Produce a FAQ that we can proudly send newcomers to and say, 'There is a wealth of great stuff in the FAQ if you are curious about Linux'
So here it is. I say this is enough, then we actually answer FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
<ORIGINAL SUBMISSION SNIPPED>
# # END OF REPOST
, the number of broken links to high-profile sites would make for some good armchair stats on the strength of Linux overall. (Hey, let's get Terry to write a program to do it...)