If we go with option 2 (which I support, as long as the user is first directed at the 'showstopper' class of reports) - may I suggest we start building this in a sightly more tree-oriented structure, rather than one (very) long list?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joshua Slive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 1:17 PM Subject: What should the FAQ contain? (was Re: Proposal: Trash the 2.0 FAQ.) > > 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] > >
