Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/03/06/06:33:30
On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Michael Phelps wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Paul Shirley wrote:
>
> > Back in the real world: I suppose its worth discussing what an
> > appropriate response to the FAQs that annoy Eli so much should be.
> > Converting them to an email response *most* of the time sounds
> > reasonable to me.
>
> I'm not completely convinced of that. It's easy to say when you're a
> DJGPP veteran and know exactly where to look when you have a question, and
> are already familiar with a lot of the background information. But,
> people new to DJGPP might need a little more assistance than simply a
> pointer to an albeit excellent FAQ.
> [...] I feel that
> this is the primary goal of the mailing list/newsgroup, and anything that
> potentially affects that does not make the list as valuable as
> before.
Although this might not be the primary reason of Michael's reservations
concerning the retro-moderation issue, I cannot let the above views to go
unnoticed. I have changed the subject, since this doesn't really belong
to the R-M issue. What follows are my own personal ideas, so please don't
flame me for them, especially since I think you will realize that I
usually don't behave like those principles dictate when replying to people
who violate them.
I will say it up front: I protest *strongly* against the idea that the
DJGPP forum should be *requested* to provide support for people who
didn't bother to browse the relevant docs. This news group is NOT a
free hotline; whoever uses it as such is abusing the good will of
people who provide help here. It is OK to be confused and ask
questions--no documentation is perfect--but please let us see some
sign that you have at least tried to read the docs and act as
explained there. Asking questions that are well-documented and in
almost exactly the same language is a telltale sign that no effort was
made to try making things work, and that the ``DJGPP veterans'' are
*expected* to make them work for you. It should be obvious how such
abuse adversely affects the motivation to improve the DJGPP docs, in
the FAQ and elsewhere: what's the use of making the docs better, if
people who need them the most don't seem to read them anyway?
If you have tried to no avail to find the answers in the docs and later
got them answered on the news group, please take a few moments to analyze
why did you fail to find them. Are the docs or the FAQ not clear enough?
Please say so, and they will be fixed. But maybe the reason is that you
skipped an index, or didn't use the right tool to search the docs, in
which case you should begin using that tool or know about that index next
time. It might well be that the FAQ, as it is now, is not enough to get
you started, but it is *intended* to be enough. I am not aware of any
issues whose omission from the FAQ prevents it from being such a
self-starting tool and requires therefore ``a little more assistance'';
but if there are such issues, please spell them out.
The support provided on c.o.m.d. clearly does NOT impose the above
principles, or else it would have been much more terse and unfriendly
to newbies. I think it should continue to be the way it is, the above
views notwithstanding. But *demanding* anything beyond a pointer to
an existing documentation or clarification of a subtle or
ill-documented issue, or expecting that this will be ``the primary
goal'' of the news group, is IMHO impolite and unethical.
- Raw text -