new FAQ -- to delay or not?

Andrew Sullivan (
Thu, 27 Aug 1998 16:06:42 -0400 (EDT)

Hi all,

Sorry to be asking inane questions like this, but it seems worth polling
the list to find out people's views.

The new FAQ is moving along (kinda pokily -- I'm sort of having a holiday
before facing the dreaded return to school and the hundreds of students),
but I'm wondering whether to delay until a week or two _after_ the new (v.
1.5) release.  I was thinking this might be useful, so that the multitude
of questions that come up right after the new release can be accommodated.
That is, I expect there will be a new set of questions to go with the new
release, but which will not really get going until after the new release
becomes available.

So, here's the question: do I delay until the questions settle down, or do
I try to predict problems in advance?  (My predictive powers are not
really what I'd like them to be!)  I'd sort of like to set things up so
that we can expect a new FAQ list ~every 3 months (so, the next one would
be at the end of Dec.); that way I can include an expiry date in the FAQ.

I'll take both votes one way or the other, and also arguments in favour of
one position or the other.  Convincing arguments will trump a majority
vote; otherwise, I'll go with whatever the majority opinion is.  If no-one
has a view (don't feel compelled to respond!), my default is to do a minor
adjustment to the current document to fix a couple of glaring problems
(this to be sent posthaste to Mr Aznar for inclusion with 1.5), and then
release a new FAQ shortly after AS v. 1.5 comes available.

Sorry for the bother, and thanks.


Andrew Sullivan | (better)| (worse)
                                   *  *  *
'finger -l' to find the AfterStep FAQ file.