'Heart Of Gold'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
msbelle, how about opening it up for factual corrections only? Then you take those notes, perform any rewriting necessary and go with it. No style edits, no nothing, and once the first round of feedback is in you and the team have final say.
This sounds sensible. Do we even need to vote it? Can't we just put it up, and if there are errors, note them for correction?
I like ita's idea.
Oh, there's no voting in my suggestion, believe me.
Here's the thing. I am pretty damn sure that if people have problems, they are gonna have problems with things being removed and/or tone - not facts.
I am pretty damn sure that if people have problems, they are gonna have problems with things being removed and/or tone - not facts
Less work for you, then.
Oh, there's no voting in my suggestion, believe me.
Sorry. That was actually clear. I just over affirmed.
I vote for no vote. We don't vote on FAQ edits in general, so why would we vote on a whole bunch of FAQ edits? I just don't see anything constructive coming out of it.
I don't care whether there's a vote or not. I am concerned that everyone will have a comment on something, and then a comment on everyone's comment, and it'll be a zoo for the people who have to edit. Arguing about what is a proper factual representation is what I do for a living, so I'm not sure this is a good limitation. But I don't know how open for argument this FAQ will be.
I propose that since msbelle is doing the work, she gets final say on which edits to accept/reject, because she's all smart and stuff.
If someone gets mental about it, msbelle will make the requested change for $25 a word.
And I get 15% as the agent of this suggestion.
What msbelle said. People won't say, "Oh, you don't know what NATLBSB means!!" People will say, Why did you delete X, Y and Z?"
I imagine it's worthwhile to repost or Nilly the original rationale that got us revising, to provide context, but even so -- we made editorial decisions, and people are gonna disagree with those decisions each in his/her own way. Even if we do an up/down vote on FAQ 2.0, what if it's voted down? Do we start all over again with the revision?
(N.b. I don't think anybody really wants the FAQ to stay as it is now; it's needed an update/streamline for a long time.)