The FAQ is about to reach its fourth year since the last update. Steve
Summit's contributions to this newsgroup and C deserve our gratitude.

But it is showing signs of age (such as noting ``Alta Vista'' as a search
engine as opposed to not even mentioning the much more widely-used Google).
There's still even a mention of ``archie'' (does anyone /still/ use that
tool?)

As mentioned in a thread from a year ago, the FAQ also has a number of dead
links. ``Dragging the FAQ kicking and screaming into the 1990's'' is how
Richard Heathfield phrased it.

Presuming that Steve Summit has other obligations, could we (as a community
of c.l.c. participants) brush up on SCS' existing body of work and bring it
up to date. Knowing the need for immediacy of most newbies, those that are
advised to read the FAQ may be discourged when they see a revision date of
2004, regarded as ancient history in internet time.

The core of the FAQ is still relevant (modulo a few C99 items). I'm not
suggesting a rewrite -- maybe just a touch up in a manner that wouldn't
usurp the intent of SCS.

Bob Nelson said:

<snip>

> The core of the FAQ is still relevant (modulo a few C99 items). I'm not
> suggesting a rewrite -- maybe just a touch up in a manner that wouldn't
> usurp the intent of SCS.

It's a good idea, but there is a problem: intellectual property. I'm not
saying that this problem is insurmountable, but it is certainly present.

What we as a group might reasonably do is work on an upgrade, and present
it to Steve for "adoption" at the end of the process. That way, his IP
rights are not violated, we perhaps get a collective ACK in the
appropriate section, and everyone gets a better FAQ.

Issues:

1) we would need Steve's permission up-front before even thinking about
beginning to commence to make a start on this;
2) how would disputes be resolved? If the clueless and the troll-like are
denied a voice, they will complain that the process is undemocratic. And
if they *are* allowed a voice, we end up with a broken FAQ. Even where
genuinely competent people of good will disagree, that disagreement still
needs to be resolved;
3) how will Addison-Wesley feel about this?
4) anything I didn't think of.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

As you people have already mentioned that the core of the FAQ is still
valid, we can bring up questions which need revision in the group
itself. Based on discussions, the answers can be closed and with
permission of Steve, can be appended to the original document.

Richard Heathfield wrote, On 02/06/08 06:32:
> Bob Nelson said:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The core of the FAQ is still relevant (modulo a few C99 items). I'm not
>> suggesting a rewrite -- maybe just a touch up in a manner that wouldn't
>> usurp the intent of SCS.
>
> It's a good idea, but there is a problem: intellectual property. I'm not
> saying that this problem is insurmountable, but it is certainly present.
>
> What we as a group might reasonably do is work on an upgrade, and present
> it to Steve for "adoption" at the end of the process. That way, his IP
> rights are not violated, we perhaps get a collective ACK in the
> appropriate section, and everyone gets a better FAQ.
>
> Issues:
>
> 1) we would need Steve's permission up-front before even thinking about
> beginning to commence to make a start on this;

Not necessarily a problem in terms of copyright. You are allowed to
quote copyright material for the purpose of fair use including
commenting on it, so you could certainly quote an individual
question/answer and discuss what would be an improvement.

> 2) how would disputes be resolved? If the clueless and the troll-like are
> denied a voice, they will complain that the process is undemocratic. And
> if they *are* allowed a voice, we end up with a broken FAQ. Even where
> genuinely competent people of good will disagree, that disagreement still
> needs to be resolved;

That's easy (potentially), it is Steve's document so he obviously gets
to decide what goes in any official version ;-)

> 3) how will Addison-Wesley feel about this?

See above.

> 4) anything I didn't think of.

5) Whether Steve will have time to review and incorporate any suggestions.
--
Flash Gordon