The FAQ should include questions that are frequently asked. Hence the name. If a frequently asked question can be or is described elsewhere in the docs, then all that is needed is a reference to it from the FAQ. Some of the FAQ questions already do that to a certain extent.
I don't think that being described elsewhere in the docs necessarily disqualifies something from going in the FAQ. Maybe it means the FAQ needs to be better organized, but just having things in the docs and not in the FAQ will not give anywhere to point people to go before doing something silly like posting to a newsgroup or submittin ga bug report. On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Joshua Slive wrote: > > There seems to be general support for starting from scratch with the 2.0 > FAQ, subject to first posting what I plan to keep. > > However, I would like to see some opinions on the question raised by Bill > on what criteria should be used for including things in the FAQ. > > Summary (please correct me if I'm not being fair): > > Option 1: > > - Include only "Showstopper" FAQs which prevent people from using Apache. > I believe this would mean that the FAQ would contain a few of the > questions in the current categories C and D and nothing else. New > documents could be created for "Background information" (Part A), and > other information could be moved to more appropriate places in the docs. > > Option 2: > > - Include questions which are "frequently asked" in the newsgroups, bug > database, or the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses. Include these things in the > FAQ only if they cannot be adequately addressed elsewhere, either because > they don't fit in any other documents, or they need to be repeated for > added emphasis. > > My personal opinion is that, while "showstoppers" should be given > priority, Option 1 is too restrictive. > > Other opinions? > > Joshua > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
