ftp.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2000/08/23/08:04:27

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:03:54 +0100
Message-ID: <1845-Wed23Aug2000130354+0100-starksb@ebi.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: emacs 20.7.1 (via feedmail 9-beta-7 I);
VM 6.75 under Emacs 20.7.1
From: David Starks-Browning <starksb AT ebi DOT ac DOT uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject: FAQ-O-Matic (Was: perl-5.6.0 ready for test! (IMPORTANT READ THIS MESSAGE ON
In-Reply-To: <39A3238D.3C8A6160@ece.gatech.edu>
References: <8600BF007197944F8DD3906E40CB428005D83C AT itdomain001 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
<20000822204228 DOT B770 AT cygnus DOT com>
<39A3238D DOT 3C8A6160 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>

On Tuesday 22 Aug 00, Charles Wilson writes:
> Chris Faylor wrote:
> > 
> > Hmm.  I like this!  We could even set up FAQ-O-MATIC on the cygwin web pages.
> I think FAQ-O-MATIC is a pretty good idea...for those who've never seen
> a FAQ-O-MATIC, check out:
> http://www.loria.fr/~molli/fom-serve/cache/1.html

I think this *could* be a good idea, if it's done properly.  I would
hate to see the Cygwin FAQ (or the Cygwin Apps FAQ) become what the
gcc FAQ-O-Matic is now.  In fact, I was at first opposed to the idea
outright, because the gcc FOM is the only FOM I've encountered.  But I
see now that it merely serves as an excellent example of how *not* to
use FOM.

Specifically, there must be *active* moderators doing a decent job.  I
don't want to see any of these, at least they shouldn't be there long:


I don't want to see the FOM become a public Q&A forum, for people who
can't be bothered to subscribe and/or mail to the right mailing list:


(assuming that brings up the "g++ compile error in hp-ux 11.00"
answer, I couldn't find a good search-based URL).

There are lots of pros, of course.  It would be great to be able to
delegate moderator duties to others on a section-by-section basis,
without having to establish cvs-write access at sources.redhat.com.
(And without having to learn ssh + CVS.  But everybody should learn
that anyway, right?)

Chris, is there an issue with resources?  The server will have to do
quite a bit more than spit out html.  Will Red Hat, Inc. come after
you if someone posts warez or DVD decryption source or ...

I'm not looking forward to moving the existing Cygwin FAQ to FOM -- it
would be a big job at first.  But if it helps us deliver a better
product, I'm all for it.  (Maybe nobody was thinking about the
existing FAQ, but if it works well for Cygwin Apps, then it's probably
a good idea for all of it.)

Anyway, that's my $10 worth.


  David Starks-Browning                  | starksb AT ebi DOT ac DOT uk
  EMBL Outstation --                     |
  The European Bioinformatics Institute  |
  Wellcome Trust Genome Campus           | tel: +44 (1223) 494 616
  Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK       | fax: +44 (1223) 494 468

- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019