FAQ or not FAQ?

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo]

Hello.

The welcome message of this group says:

"The comp.lang.c++ FAQ is available at
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/"

However, nothing in that FAQ mentions that is FAQ of this newsgroup, it
calls itself "the C++ FAQ Lite". And the current thread about the [ ] [ ]
usages and others in the past shows that the document in question does not
refelect the consensus of the group, and thus does not play well the role
of FAQ of the group.

So I think that the quoted paragraph must be rewritten in order to not say
or give the impression that the C++ FAQ Lite is the FAQ of comp.lang.c++

Maybe we need a FAQ with just one point: "Is 'The C++ FAQ Lite' the FAQ of
comp.lang.c++?" ;-)

--
Salu2

[Noah Roberts]

Julián Albo wrote:

Hello.

The welcome message of this group says:

"The comp.lang.c++ FAQ is available at
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/"

However, nothing in that FAQ mentions that is FAQ of this newsgroup, it
calls itself "the C++ FAQ Lite". And the current thread about the [ ] [ ]
usages and others in the past shows that the document in question does not
refelect the consensus of the group, and thus does not play well the role
of FAQ of the group.

So I think that the quoted paragraph must be rewritten in order to not say
or give the impression that the C++ FAQ Lite is the FAQ of comp.lang.c++

Maybe we need a FAQ with just one point: "Is 'The C++ FAQ Lite' the FAQ of
comp.lang.c++?" ;-)

This group is not moderated. Anyone can come in here and claim to have
written the newsgroup FAQ. The fact that nobody else has stepped up
and it keeps getting used by members in this group to answer questions
found within it show that it DOES reflect the concensus of the group.
The fact that a few people disagree very loudly about one particular
FAQ in it doesn't change this.

[Victor Bazarov]

Julián Albo wrote:

The welcome message of this group says:

"The comp.lang.c++ FAQ is available at
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/"

However, nothing in that FAQ mentions that is FAQ of this newsgroup,
it calls itself "the C++ FAQ Lite". And the current thread about the
[ ] [ ] usages and others in the past shows that the document in
question does not refelect the consensus of the group, and thus does
not play well the role of FAQ of the group.

So I think that the quoted paragraph must be rewritten in order to
not say or give the impression that the C++ FAQ Lite is the FAQ of
comp.lang.c++

Maybe we need a FAQ with just one point: "Is 'The C++ FAQ Lite' the
FAQ of comp.lang.c++?" ;-)

In most cases the "C++ FAQ Lite" list (maintained by Marshall Cline)
acurately reflects the FAQ in c.l.c++. As to the answers, they can
be changed, contact Marshall Cline for that. As to the Welcome
message, it's here for convenience, and does reflect the consensus
about what to consider c.l.c++ FAQ, IMO. But we'll see, I guess...

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Julián Albo:

Hello.

The welcome message of this group says:

"The comp.lang.c++ FAQ is available at
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/"

However, nothing in that FAQ mentions that is FAQ of this newsgroup, it
calls itself "the C++ FAQ Lite". And the current thread about the [ ] [ ]
usages and others in the past shows that the document in question does not
refelect the consensus of the group, and thus does not play well the role
of FAQ of the group.

So I think that the quoted paragraph must be rewritten in order to not say
or give the impression that the C++ FAQ Lite is the FAQ of comp.lang.c++

Maybe we need a FAQ with just one point: "Is 'The C++ FAQ Lite' the FAQ of
comp.lang.c++?" ;-)

To be precise, it is the FAQ of [comp.lang.c++.moderated]; see <url:
http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm>.

But as the FAQ of [comp.lang.c++.moderated] it serves well also as the
FAQ of [comp.lang.c++].

And, unless I've got my history entirely wrong, it became the FAQ of
[comp.lang.c++.moderated] because it was widely recognized as the FAQ of
[comp.lang.c++], and not surprisingly it's still widely recognized as
the FAQ of [comp.lang.c++]. But of course for this non-moderated group
it's all in the group mind ;-), it's all about recognition by the
community. If, say, Marshall for some reason was unable to maintain the
FAQ, and someone else took over, and the FAQ degenerated, and enough of
us then started referring to some other FAQ (that's a lot of
concatenated if's), then that other FAQ would be this group's FAQ, or
perhaps we'd then have two or more FAQs of quality like the current, and
then probably [comp.lang.c++.moderated] would follow suit.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Daniel T.]

Julián Albo <JU********@terra.eswrote:

The welcome message of this group says:

"The comp.lang.c++ FAQ is available at
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/"

However, nothing in that FAQ mentions that is FAQ of this newsgroup, it
calls itself "the C++ FAQ Lite". And the current thread about the [ ] [ ]
usages and others in the past shows that the document in question does not
refelect the consensus of the group, and thus does not play well the role
of FAQ of the group.

So I think that the quoted paragraph must be rewritten in order to not say
or give the impression that the C++ FAQ Lite is the FAQ of comp.lang.c++

Maybe we need a FAQ with just one point: "Is 'The C++ FAQ Lite' the FAQ of
comp.lang.c++?" ;-)

There are things in the FAQ Lite that I don't agree with. With such an
extensive FAQ I expect there are things that many people don't agree
with. There are even things in it that the likes of Sutter and
Alexandrescu don't agree with.

I know of three FAQs for the C++ language. The one mentioned above,
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/techtalk/ and
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html. There is also Marshall
Cline's book C++ FAQs. There are also lots of sites like
http://www.cppreference.com/ and http://www.dinkumware.com/manuals/
which offer guidance but not in a Q&A format.

Every website including the FAQ Lite will reflect the prejudices,
experience and bias of the author. If you wish to author and maintain an
FAQ, I would love to read it and would be happy to contribute. :-)

Please understand Julián, this is not a moderated forum. There is no one
"in charge". Even the welcome message you speak of (I'm assuming you are
talking about the one that Shiva posts periodically) is just one
person's opinion.

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo]

Noah Roberts wrote:

>So I think that the quoted paragraph must be rewritten in order to not
say or give the impression that the C++ FAQ Lite is the FAQ of
comp.lang.c++

Maybe we need a FAQ with just one point: "Is 'The C++ FAQ Lite' the FAQ
of comp.lang.c++?" ;-)

This group is not moderated. Anyone can come in here and claim to have
written the newsgroup FAQ.

Yes. Are you proposing such type of solution?

The fact that nobody else has stepped up and it keeps getting used
by members in this group to answer questions found within it show
that it DOES reflect the concensus of the group.

It does not shows such thing. Just shows that some points reflects it. Given
that reasoning, TC++PL can be also be announced as the FAQ of the group.

The fact that a few people disagree very loudly about one particular
FAQ in it doesn't change this.

The fact that a FAQ generates endlessly repetitions of the same type of
mesages instead of contribute to avoid him, change the purpose of the FAQ
concept.

--
Salu2

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo]

Daniel T. wrote:

Please understand Julián, this is not a moderated forum. There is no one
"in charge". Even the welcome message you speak of (I'm assuming you are
talking about the one that Shiva posts periodically) is just one
person's opinion.

I understand that. I'm just expressing my opinion that the current situation
present some problems, and that a tiny change of words in some messages can
aminorate it. This is not an attempt to disqualify the content of the C++
Lite FAQ or blame his author, is a constructive proposal. And I don't call
for an authority that imposes an official FAQ document, just for some
reflexion.

--
Salu2

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo]

Victor Bazarov wrote:

In most cases the "C++ FAQ Lite" list (maintained by Marshall Cline)
acurately reflects the FAQ in c.l.c++.

Yes, but a few are unnecessary polemic, and I think the cause of the
polemics can be his inadequate presentation as *the* FAQ of the group and a
little change will be useful. I can be wrong, of course.

As to the Welcome message, it's here for convenience, and does reflect
the consensus about what to consider c.l.c++ FAQ, IMO. But we'll see, I
guess...

This is what I consider a problem, that the consensus looks to be not wide
enough, or maybe the consensus is more in the idea that is a good C++ FAQ
than in that is the group FAQ.

--
Salu2

[Victor Bazarov]

Julián Albo wrote:

Victor Bazarov wrote:

>In most cases the "C++ FAQ Lite" list (maintained by Marshall Cline)
acurately reflects the FAQ in c.l.c++.

Yes, but a few are unnecessary polemic, and I think the cause of the
polemics can be his inadequate presentation as *the* FAQ of the group
and a little change will be useful. I can be wrong, of course.

>As to the Welcome message, it's here for convenience, and does
reflect the consensus about what to consider c.l.c++ FAQ, IMO. But
we'll see, I guess...

This is what I consider a problem, that the consensus looks to be not
wide enough, or maybe the consensus is more in the idea that is a
good C++ FAQ than in that is the group FAQ.

Historically speaking, when article retention on newsservers was the
only source of past posts for Usenetizens, FAQ made sense and there was
a need in it. Right now, with Google Groups (inheriting from DejaNews)
the archives make existense of FAQ more trouble than its worth.

FAQ and FGA (Frequently Given Answers) are moving targets. Either the
lists have to be constantly changed or we accept discrepancies. Simple
as that. And when nobody really has the time or the motivation to keep
FAQ lists up to date, and considering the diversity of *available*
sources of information, the expectations need to be lowered.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo]

Victor Bazarov wrote:

FAQ and FGA (Frequently Given Answers) are moving targets. Either the
lists have to be constantly changed or we accept discrepancies. Simple
as that. And when nobody really has the time or the motivation to keep
FAQ lists up to date, and considering the diversity of *available*
sources of information, the expectations need to be lowered.

Maybe there is no practical solution, and maybe the problem is unimportant,
people can just ignore long threads that have no interest to him. However,
I still think that a few change of words can give some benefit.

--
Salu2

[Noah Roberts]

Julián Albo wrote:

Victor Bazarov wrote:

FAQ and FGA (Frequently Given Answers) are moving targets. Either the
lists have to be constantly changed or we accept discrepancies. Simple
as that. And when nobody really has the time or the motivation to keep
FAQ lists up to date, and considering the diversity of *available*
sources of information, the expectations need to be lowered.

Maybe there is no practical solution, and maybe the problem is unimportant,
people can just ignore long threads that have no interest to him. However,
I still think that a few change of words can give some benefit.

If you told people that the sky is often blue the cances are high that
at least one would retort that you are mistaken - it is often grey.
This doesn't mean that you are wrong or being unclear.

[mlimber]

Julián Albo wrote:

The welcome message of this group says:

"The comp.lang.c++ FAQ is available at
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/"

However, nothing in that FAQ mentions that is FAQ of this newsgroup

Nothing? This section mentions this group repeatedly:

http://parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html

Cheers! --M

[Daniel T.]

Julián Albo <JU********@terra.eswrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

Please understand Julián, this is not a moderated forum. There is no one
"in charge". Even the welcome message you speak of (I'm assuming you are
talking about the one that Shiva posts periodically) is just one
person's opinion.

I understand that. I'm just expressing my opinion that the current situation
present some problems, and that a tiny change of words in some messages can
aminorate it. This is not an attempt to disqualify the content of the C++
Lite FAQ or blame his author, is a constructive proposal. And I don't call
for an authority that imposes an official FAQ document, just for some
reflexion.

Julián, the solution is simple. Create an FAQ with the questions you
feel are asked frequently and inadequately answered in one of the other
FAQs, then when someone asks a question that your FAQ covers, refer them
to it. Also, periodically post your FAQ to the newsgroup for peer review.

Others who like your answers will also begin to refer to your FAQ when
helping new people. Those new people will also use your FAQ, and so on.
Who knows, maybe your FAQ will one day supplant Marshall's as "the FAQ"!

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo]

Noah Roberts wrote:

>Maybe there is no practical solution, and maybe the problem is
unimportant, people can just ignore long threads that have no interest to
him. However, I still think that a few change of words can give some
benefit.

If you told people that the sky is often blue the cances are high that
at least one would retort that you are mistaken - it is often grey.
This doesn't mean that you are wrong or being unclear.

True. But if a significant number of people says the same, chances are high
that you were less clear than intended.

--
Salu2

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo]

mlimber wrote:

>However, nothing in that FAQ mentions that is FAQ of this newsgroup

Nothing? This section mentions this group repeatedly:
http://parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html

Right, my mistake.

But is interesting the fact that several previous answers failed to catch
it ;-)

--
Salu2

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo]

Daniel T. wrote:

Julián, the solution is simple. Create an FAQ with the questions you
feel are asked frequently and inadequately answered in one of the other
FAQs, then when someone asks a question that your FAQ covers, refer them
to it. Also, periodically post your FAQ to the newsgroup for peer review.

I doubt that having two FAQ and two groups arguing against or defending one
or the other will be a solution desired by any other than those that like
repeating again and again the same debate with the same arguments.... vi or
emacs?

--
Salu2

[Daniel T.]

Julián Albo <JU********@terra.eswrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

Julián, the solution is simple. Create an FAQ with the questions you
feel are asked frequently and inadequately answered in one of the other
FAQs, then when someone asks a question that your FAQ covers, refer them
to it. Also, periodically post your FAQ to the newsgroup for peer review.

I doubt that having two FAQ and two groups arguing against or defending one
or the other will be a solution desired by any other than those that like
repeating again and again the same debate with the same arguments.... vi or
emacs?

I thought your goal was to build consensus. I'm not suggesting you write
a diatribe against the current FAQ, I'm suggesting you write a fair
balanced report on the issues that concern you. If you do that, then
people on both sides will prefer your answer to the one(s) currently
available.

Writing an FAQ is hard, maintaining it is hard, and promoting it is
hard. If you don't want to do that, I can understand why.

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo]

Daniel T. wrote:

I thought your goal was to build consensus.

Not exactly. The goal is that the FAQ of a group reflect his existent
consensus.

I'm suggesting you write a fair balanced report on the issues that
concern you.

Thanks for your confiance in my capabilities, but I don't share it.

--
Salu2

[Daniel T.]

Julián Albo <JU********@terra.eswrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

I thought your goal was to build consensus.

Not exactly. The goal is that the FAQ of a group reflect his existent
consensus.

Unless the consensus matches Marshall's opinion, your asking a lot. :-)

I'm suggesting you write a fair balanced report on the issues that
concern you.

Thanks for your confiance in my capabilities, but I don't share it.

Don't worry about it. I've maintained FAQs before, not for anything as
high volume as this but even so, it isn't easy to do.

Another option would be to simply use google.groups to refer people back
to the threads where you answered the question before. In a way, you are
creating an FAQ every time you answer a question. :-)

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo]

Daniel T. wrote:

Don't worry about it. I've maintained FAQs before, not for anything as
high volume as this but even so, it isn't easy to do.
Another option would be to simply use google.groups to refer people back
to the threads where you answered the question before.

In fact we are already doing it... even inside the same thread :D

--
Salu2

[Lionel B]

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:12:35 +0100, Julián Albo wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

>I thought your goal was to build consensus.

Not exactly. The goal is that the FAQ of a group reflect his existent
consensus.

I seems to me that a FAQ may need to handle situations where there simply
*isn't* reasoned consensus (the [][] vs. (,) debate being arguably a case
in point). Then perhaps the best a FAQ can do is to state clearly the
conflicting views and let the reader decide.

--
Lionel B

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo]

Lionel B wrote:

>>I thought your goal was to build consensus.

Not exactly. The goal is that the FAQ of a group reflect his existent
consensus.

I seems to me that a FAQ may need to handle situations where there simply
*isn't* reasoned consensus (the [][] vs. (,) debate being arguably a case
in point). Then perhaps the best a FAQ can do is to state clearly the
conflicting views and let the reader decide.

I agree, I don't expressed well my point. It must reflect consensus in
points were claims there are one majoritary preferred way. In Questions
were there are not consensus but are Frequentely Answered certainly must
say something, or will not be a FAQ.

--
Salu2

[Grizlyk]

Lionel B wrote:

I seems to me that a FAQ may need to handle situations where there simply
*isn't* reasoned consensus (the [][] vs. (,) debate being arguably a case
in point). Then perhaps the best a FAQ can do is to state clearly the
conflicting views and let the reader decide.

It easy can be implemented, for example like this:

1. Marshall Cline declare rules "how alternative opinion must be
http-maked for the any required FAQ topic";
2. You make own hosted page in accordance to the rules;
3. You post letter to Marshall Cline in order to add your page to
"alternatives" selector for the concrete topic on main FAQ page;
4. If Marshall Cline can understand, that
a) your page is C++ related,
b) your page was correct http-maked and accessible,
c) your opinion does not contradict C++ standard (used and pointed
by you)
and does not repeat both '"what" and "why" of already existing
pages
he will add you page.
5. You must support hosting of your page and post to Marshall Cline if
your page is no longer exist or was seriously changed.

And all will be happy (excepting Marshall Cline).

[Daniel T.]

"Grizlyk" <gr******@yandex.ruwrote:

Lionel B wrote:

I seems to me that a FAQ may need to handle situations where there simply
*isn't* reasoned consensus (the [][] vs. (,) debate being arguably a case
in point). Then perhaps the best a FAQ can do is to state clearly the
conflicting views and let the reader decide.

It easy can be implemented, for example like this:

1. Marshall Cline declare rules "how alternative opinion must be
http-maked for the any required FAQ topic";
2. You make own hosted page in accordance to the rules;
3. You post letter to Marshall Cline in order to add your page to
"alternatives" selector for the concrete topic on main FAQ page;
4. If Marshall Cline can understand, that
a) your page is C++ related,
b) your page was correct http-maked and accessible,
c) your opinion does not contradict C++ standard (used and pointed
by you) and does not repeat both '"what" and "why" of already existing
pages he will add you page.
5. You must support hosting of your page and post to Marshall Cline if
your page is no longer exist or was seriously changed.

And all will be happy (excepting Marshall Cline).

The above would only work for those that are willing/able to write FAQs,
not for those who are only willing/able to complain about FAQs written
by others.

[Noah Roberts]

Daniel T. wrote:

"Grizlyk" <gr******@yandex.ruwrote:

Lionel B wrote:

I seems to me that a FAQ may need to handle situations where there simply
*isn't* reasoned consensus (the [][] vs. (,) debate being arguably a case
in point). Then perhaps the best a FAQ can do is to state clearly the
conflicting views and let the reader decide.

It easy can be implemented, for example like this:

1. Marshall Cline declare rules "how alternative opinion must be
http-maked for the any required FAQ topic";
2. You make own hosted page in accordance to the rules;
3. You post letter to Marshall Cline in order to add your page to
"alternatives" selector for the concrete topic on main FAQ page;
4. If Marshall Cline can understand, that
a) your page is C++ related,
b) your page was correct http-maked and accessible,
c) your opinion does not contradict C++ standard (used and pointed
by you) and does not repeat both '"what" and "why" of already existing
pages he will add you page.
5. You must support hosting of your page and post to Marshall Cline if
your page is no longer exist or was seriously changed.

And all will be happy (excepting Marshall Cline).

The above would only work for those that are willing/able to write FAQs,
not for those who are only willing/able to complain about FAQs written
by others.

Why not a wiki?

[Daniel T.]

"Noah Roberts" <ro**********@gmail.comwrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

The above would only work for those that are willing/able to write FAQs,
not for those who are only willing/able to complain about FAQs written
by others.

Why not a wiki?

Same problem. When dealing with people who don't like the answers given
in the FAQ, and are unwilling/unable to provide an alternative answer,
any solution that requires them to write an answer doesn't work.

[Grizlyk]

Daniel T. wrote:

The above would only work for those that are willing/able to write FAQs,

As i can understand, it is only problem, that people can not say own
opinion and very very suffering for it.

[Daniel T.]

"Grizlyk" <gr******@yandex.ruwrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

The above would only work for those that are willing/able to write FAQs,

As i can understand, it is only problem, that people can not say own
opinion and very very suffering for it.

Of course people can say their own opinion, they do it every time they
post in this group.

[Grizlyk]

Daniel T. wrote:

Of course people can say their own opinion, they do it every time they
post in this group.

There are differences between "post in FAQ" and "post in this group".
But in the case it does not metter _for me_, becouse I am not C++
expert, just C++ user and I am not going to maintain C++ FAQ. I just
introduce a kind of good "democratic" solution of the trouble, the
trouble which has selected _not_ by me.