Re: A FAQ for the list

From: Hal Ruhl <hjr.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:56:10 -0800

Hi George:

That is something along the lines of what I was looking for. One problem
with my current effort is the length of time for me to become sufficiently
familiar with alternate threads as I called them to be able to fairly
represent them in a FAQ .

My suggestion is that we cooperate as the first two to participate. I can
work on mine and you on yours. We compare efforts until we are satisfied
that our respective contributions meet some minimal useful standard. We
then mutually post the combined result to our web sites.

In the meantime I am going to continue work on the list of acronyms etc in
my current effort.

Hal


At 3/21/01, you wrote:
>Hi Hal
>
>The purpose of my post of september 99 was to clarify some of these issues and
>terminologies. I am still not an expert except for my own position... I
>certainly
>could not speak for others.
>
>A possible method for performing the tasks I outlined below may be to
>decentralized them... In effect assign each one of us to present in his
>own web
>page the documents I have outlined below...and simultaneously have each
>web page
>linked to the other ones... thus providing the appearance of a coordinated
>system. If somehow, we could use the same presentation software, then the
>ensemble would really look like a single system. Each site could even
>include an
>index for the whole system as well as a section for the owner of the site
>where
>he could expound his own TOE. This approach has the advantage of being
>absolutely
>egalitarian as well as of providing each author with the appropriate
>credit and
>blame.
>
>This approach leaves many questions open such as who will be the
>administrator of
>the network... could there be no administrator, with all decisions based on a
>democratic process?
>
>George
Received on Thu Mar 22 2001 - 18:12:42 PST