Re: [CH] FAQ - Recipies ?

AndyB (quark@erols.com)
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 22:00:14 -0500 

Although you raise some good points, several of which I previously brought up myself, by your extreme negativism, I take it that you are completely against such an endeavor. It is as if you are considering the task impossible and it should not even be attempted. If, however, I have misinterpreted you, please let me know.

Again, I have just attempted to get the ball rolling, put a stake in the ground, so people have something "tangible" to comment on.  

I believe that the moderator and most of the list members are quite reasonable, and that most of us can come to an agreement.  

AndyB

Inagaddadavida wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 03:06  PM, AndyB wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Brent Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Should Chile recipes be included on the FAQ site ?
> >>
> >> This is purely a matter of site-owner's choice.
> >
> > No, it is not.
> > I have solicited opinions as to whether this type of info should be on
> > the FAQ. I plan to abide by the consensus of the list.
> >
> > I have also solicited for a "committee" to review/approve the content.
> > Until I get such endorsement, I will keep the site "Unofficial".
> >
> > So far yours is the only negative reply from the list regarding
> > recipes.
> > I have already received several positive replies.
> > As I said in previous emails, I would not choose the recipes,
> > rather, I let the list select.
> 
> Well, it seems to me that by including all of this stuff, recipes as
> well, the outcome will be, or is heading towards being, something
> deemed Official in some sense.  The Official CH FAQ or the like...and
> then comes into play, things like who has the right to do/name such
> since the CH list is owned and managed by a single individual, Brother
> Mike B.?  

I have already stated that Mike would have to approve any such "official" site.

> Just my opinion, but I think anything created should remain
> forever and always UNofficial.  After all, such a thing gets really
> complex, ya know...like:
> 
> Who is responsible for all the info in the FAQ?

In order not to put an undue burden on Mike, I have suggested a committee for such work, with Mike's approval/direction.  I hope that the members would not only be reviewers/approvers but also workers. 


> Who shall upkeep it 
I could.  We could also have or more mirror sites, for backup, in case my site disintegrates.
> (presumably forever and ever)?
I presume that you are just being nasty here.

> How shall he/she/they who upkeep it/host it/etc. be decided upon?
> 
> Who is *accountable* for any/all info in the FAQ? (remember the day and
> age in which we live)
> 
> Who's this "committee"? Elected? Appointed (if such, by whom? how is
> right to do so granted?
 To be de
> What constitutes something worth putting in the FAQ, on the site, etc.;
> what determines what can NOT be put in FAQ, site, etc.
> 
> You see, IMO, this is a pain in the butt.  I'm sure those in favor have
> the answer at hand, being :  well, Rael, then keep your ass out of it.
> No problemo.  But it shouldn't be official.  It shouldn't be
> unofficially official ("go see the FAQ").  And it sure as hell
> shouldn't be something that continually creates problems on the list
> because the irony of it all is rather pathetic and sad.
> 
> there.  Done said my piece.  Party on...
> 
> Peace, Hendrix, and Chiles.......
> 
> Rael64
> Monk of the TCS
> Master of Twister
> Mystic Order of Capsicum Rogues