On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:54, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote: >>>> >>>> It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a useful >>>> lifetime of much more than the time it will take to achieve consensus >>>> on the responses. >>> >>> Actually, it's looking pretty good already. My experience of FAQs is that a >>> good FAQ starts small and is dynamic, changing with the questions that are >>> current in the project. I see no reason to assume it will take weeks of >>> delay to have a stable set of questions and answers that can then form the >>> core of future activity. >>> >> >> With 22 of 33 revisions coming from you, I assume it would meet with >> your satisfaction. But if you are happy with it now, maybe take a >> break and let someone else get in and edit? > > First you complain I do nothing, now you're unhappy I do too much. Impossible > to please :-) > > Seriously though, getting a page started in a wiki in public is like that; > you don't perfect it offline, you hack it online and every "save" looks like > a revision to the outsider. It's quiesced now, knock yourself out. >
That's fine. Until you step back it can be hard to tell whether that painting you're admiring is actually a painting, or a mirror ;-) Allowing a few more brushes in there is a great idea. > S. >
