David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "siljaline" <spam@uce.gov>
>
>> shplink wrote:
>>> Hi there...
>
>>> I've been updating and posting the FAQ to this fine newsgroup for a
>>> number of years now.
>
>>> I enjoy browsing through the discussions, particularly the less
>>> inflammatory ones, when I have the time. But I find myself
>>> monitoring this group less and less. I wonder if the time has come
>>> to pass the torch, so to speak:
>
>>> Is an FAQ even necessary, any more? Would anyone be willing to take
>>> over?
>
>>> I'd appreciate any feedback... Thanks!
>
>>> ~John K.
>
>> John,
>
>> I am remiss at my promises to provide you feedback to overhaul the
>> FAQ.
>
>> As far as someone else taking on what you have done very well for a
>> good number
>> of years, I do not know what to tell you.
>
>> I would say this, based on the signal to noise ratio of this NG, I
>> am not sure if it needs
>> an FAQ any longer.
>
>> At last revision it took longer in debate as to what should be in
>> the FAQ than it did getting
>> a reasonably good FAQ put together - which begs the question.
>> If one was to do and FAQ from scratch, who, by definition would be
>> able to sign off on it ?
>
>> I think those that have a legitimate interest in reading this group
>> are sufficiently familiar with
>> whatever information required is out there on search engines.
>
>> If all else fails, ask.
>
>> Thanks for your efforts in maintaining the FAQ for as many years as
>> it has been !!! _My Hat off to you_
>
>
> I disagree.
> Because of the S/N ratio, I think a FAQ is more important than ever.

+1

I'd like to add that using the FAQ is a whole lot more safe and efficient
than using a search engine. Moreover, "signing off on it" is a
non-issue--anyone can create a FAQ and post it. Many people have (in other
groups). It does not require the agreement of all members of a group to
create a FAQ that is useful to most members of the group.

> John:
>
> You have done a great job. T H A N K Y O U !

+100000000000000000000000000...on both counts.