[1527] in RedHat Linux List
Re: FAQs (was Re: moving contents of hard drive)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Sangrey)
Mon Oct 28 20:41:46 1996
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:07:34 PST."
<Pine.LNX.3.95.961027235247.3831A-100000@krusty.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 20:11:26 -0500
From: Mike Sangrey <mike@sojurn.lns.pa.us>
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
> On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Donnie Barnes wrote:
> > I have a philosophical problem adding this to the FAQ. It is
> > the "Red Hat" FAQ, so we should try to keep it Red Hat specific,
> > and this isn't.
> >
> > Perhaps we should have a Red Hat mailing list FAQ? I'd like to
> > see that, but I'd also like to see it handled by the user base
> > (ie *you* guys, not me :-). I would be willing to put it on our
> > web site and even change the danged footer for every message.
> > If anyone would like to volunteer to maintain such a doc, email
> > me privately. The maintainer would *have* to keep the FAQ in
> > linuxdoc-sgml format, though. (It isn't hard to learn, I promise.)
>
> I see your point. The Red Hat FAQ should be Red Hat specific. But
> there's no use reinventing the wheel by making a redhat-list FAQ
> (i.e. duplicating the efforts of the LDP). On the other hand, there is
> a lot of off-topic mail on this list, and many of them are FAQs.
>
> What do others think? Donnie used to be the champion of tact with his
> "read the FAQ" messages, though it would piss some people off. Should
> we discourage off-topic posts and pleas for general help? There are
> other mail-lists and news groups for this type of help, although I'm the
> first to admit the redhat-list is the only one I follow regularly due to
> the friendly, helpful nature of the folks here and the fairly high and
> spam-free signal:noise ratio.
>
I often thought that the Internet (more specifically, linux) needs a help
desk. The newsgroup and email-list concept is very, very good for non-faq
help because it generates superlative cross-training, provides quick response
time, and it leverages the expertise of the user community (the ones that know
because they NEED to know). However, it is, by its nature a broadcast
mechanism and therefore bandwidth intensive. What I think is needed is a way
to funnel simple questions away from the email-list toward a single (or nearly
single) response.
Here's the thought:
A newbie fires off a question to the redhat-list. The members of the "FAQ
Response Team" -- a group of 12 to 20 knowledgeable, experienced, volunteer,
redhat users -- would notice the FAQness of the question and forward the
posting to a closed-to-subscriber-only redhat-helpdesk email list. The
redhat-helpdesk list works kinda like the way the usenet Oracle works. It
takes the email message, memorizes its message-id, bounces the mail to only
one member of the FAQ Response Team, but doing so in round robin fashion.
That person would then answer the message in a tactful, professional, helpful
manner. Additionally, the redhat-helpdesk auto-replies to the original
message, adjusting the subject to say something like, "[FAQ Alert] Re: <the
subject>". That would clue the readership in. Those new to the list, those a
little older than newbie, and others would not respond to the original
posting. The experienced readers wouldn't start a thread about useless email
clogging the list. :-) People who want the answer would look up the answer in
the FAQ. Or, the member of the FAQ Response Team who is answering the
specific question could respond to the list as well as the originator of the
question. The subject of that message could say something like, "[FAQ Alert
Answer] Re: <the subject>". This has the advantage of leaving everyone know
that the question has been answered.
As an aside, a redhat-ER list could also be set up like this. "ER" would
stand for "Emergency Room". The idea here is to funnel business critical
questions to an expert emergency response unit. It's just a thought.
Advantages:
1. The reverb that happens on a list when someone asks a FAQ would be
dampened.
2. Self-regulating. More FAQs generate more [FAQ Alerts] which cause less
FAQs to be asked.
3. There are nuances to some questions that a standard FAQ doesn't quite
answer well. That doesn't mean that the answer shouldn't be in the FAQ, but
it does provide a method to handle these nuances.
4. Greater signal to noise.
5. FAQ education of the masses.
6. Promotion and training of leadership on the list.
Disadvantages:
1. Administration, though I believe this would be small. Perhaps the FAQ
maintainer could do this. (That's not meant to volunteer anyone;-)
2. I don't know how the Usenet Oracle actually does what it does. Though I
think procmail could handle this fairly easily. But, I don't know procmail
either.:-(
Thoughts anyone?
--
Mike Sangrey <mike@sojurn.lns.pa.us> (Home)
<Mike.Sangrey@specmarkmet.com>(Work)
"I've trademarked `William Della Croce, Jr.(tm)'.
Anyone using this name owes me $1,000,000."
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Errata
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Tips http://www.redhat.com/mailing-lists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe redhat-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null
