On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:08, Rob Weir wrote: > 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. >> > > So Simon, why after 4 hours of editing and 22 revisions, and you > saying that I could edit, why am I now finding myself locked out > because you are editing again?
Actually I am not as you have the file locked for edit, so I cancelled my attempt to fix some bugs I saw. I'll do it later. But I was going to, yes. Contribution is good, and I am getting weary of your discouragement. S.
