Status of FAQ

Ummm... just curious.

Paul, did you decide that you are accepting the FAQ proposals as
"editor??" I know you are very busy with, apparently, a new project
right now... so it wasn't really clear if you had accepted (mostly by
default, since it was YOUR idea and everybody else said no) the
position of "FAQ Editor..."

Since nobody really knew that for certain, that is probably the
reason why nobody has yet sent anything to you! :)

I believe Kraig Grady was the only person who really had reservations
about you being editor... I have had an off-list conversation with
him since. I doubt he would really want to stop the process at this
point. He really doesn't want to participate on the list right now,
and has many other composing projects that are taking precedence...

So, I believe, Paul, that if people know for certain that you have
decided to do the assembling and are willing to do it, they will
start sending FAQ entries to you! Yes, no, too busy?? Whatever.

Frankly, I am quite warming up to the idea of the FAQ, since I have
noticed that I ALREADY have learned some stuff, and have noticed that
others have remarked similarly...

It's especially good in areas where there is SOME knowledge, and
maybe a "blind spot" here or there. Many of us have these, of
course, more the novitiates, of which I still must number one, than
some of the xenharmonic "old timers..."

Anyway, a second point is the fact that I believe the FAQ entries
should be fully discussed on the list. Even if it is about simple
stuff... sometimes in the distilling of the so-called "simple"
EVERYBODY learns something. Am I right on that, or do I have
dissenters in that view?

I believe a full discussion of these terms would be a very valuable
thing to do on this list, and we could all benefit.

Do others agree... yes, no, maybe, fugeddaboutdid...(??)

Either we should do this full discussion with Paul as editor, or we
should just completely drop the FAQ idea and get on to other
matters....

_________ ______ _____ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson

The above is only theory, and quite possibly could be wrong. As
Richard Nixon once said, "This would be wrong..."

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Ummm... just curious.
>
> Paul, did you decide that you are accepting the FAQ proposals as
> "editor??" I know you are very busy with, apparently, a new
project
> right now... so it wasn't really clear if you had accepted (mostly
by
> default, since it was YOUR idea and everybody else said no) the
> position of "FAQ Editor..."

I can't do it. In fact, I can't do this list anymore. Here's what I
want to do:

1) Pull my own research together, enlisting the help of various
genuises I've met on this list.

2) Joseph, why don't you e-mail me any questions you see on this list
that you think I'd be a good person to ask -- and I'll do my best to
answer them.

I'm afraid that's all I have time for at the moment.
>
> Either we should do this full discussion with Paul as editor, or we
> should just completely drop the FAQ idea and get on to other
> matters....

That would be a shame, but I like the collaborative efforts that have
taken place involving Daniel Wolf, Margo Schulter, and Ibo
Ortgies . . . at least these should lead to some reference webpages
that one can link to easily, if not a full FAQ.

Well, that's it, folks! Love to you all!

--- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19515.html#19564

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> > Ummm... just curious.
> >
> > Paul, did you decide that you are accepting the FAQ proposals as
> > "editor??" I know you are very busy with, apparently, a new
> project right now... so it wasn't really clear if you had accepted
(mostly by default, since it was YOUR idea and everybody else said
no) the position of "FAQ Editor..."
>

> I can't do it.

Well, ok. That be news...

Everybody, please refer to my post #whatever... We need a FAQ
editor, if there is to be a FAQ...

That's the "FAQ" of the matter. (OK, push me off, now...)

>In fact, I can't do this list anymore.

Here's what I want to do:
>
> 1) Pull my own research together, enlisting the help of various
> genuises I've met on this list.
>

duhhhhh, gee thanks, Paul! Whoops... did something go over my head??

> 2) Joseph, why don't you e-mail me any questions you see on this
list that you think I'd be a good person to ask -- and I'll do my
best to answer them.
>
> I'm afraid that's all I have time for at the moment.
> >

That's great, Paul. That's all that's necessary. Money will be
coming
under the table, as well...

> > Either we should do this full discussion with Paul as editor, or
we should just completely drop the FAQ idea and get on to other
> > matters....
>

> That would be a shame, but I like the collaborative efforts that
have taken place involving Daniel Wolf, Margo Schulter, and Ibo
> Ortgies . . . at least these should lead to some reference webpages
> that one can link to easily, if not a full FAQ.
>

Thank's, Paul...

Woeboy... Well, who's the "FAQ man??" Remember that old song...
"hey, 'ee, it's the FAQ man..."??

____________ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

The above is not science, so there is no question but that it is
entirely true...