Re: FAQs

Hi Justin,

> I think that a "So what tuning system am I using now ?" or "What is 12tet ?"
> type question might be in order.

I've added it to the list of "Newbie questions needing an answer"

You can edit it if you want.

Anyone who wants to add one - visit

Database | FAQ_questions_from_Newbies

I'll also add any that I notice on the list.

Robert

Hi John,

Actually, I think you'd be a better FAQ editor than Paul, because
he has such strong points of views, which would perhaps make it
quite a hard task for him.

He'd be very suitable for getting into shape some of the
sections, the ones that he is in agreement with the basic principles
for, with his clear way of thinking. However, maybe not so good for
an overview of the whole thing and what to include or leave out, and so
forth.

He is always getting into vigorous discussions with other list posters,
which is fine, and gets everyone thinking a lot, but perhaps not the sort
of thing one needs in an editor of a FAQ. For some kinds of
editing it would be fine too, sometimes one needs a clear structure
and a single thread running through the whole thing, say, for a microtonal
text book, to take one example.

However, for this particular one, I'm not so sure. I think we want
a multi-threaded approach, to use a computer analogy. Otherwise,
some interesting and significant points of view might get lost
at some point along the line.

To take a recent example, how could he well edit the section
on set theoretic approaches? Or even, sort out a suitable
sub editor to be in discussion with about how it should be
done, and to help him / her to get it into shape?

Since I've been with the TL, I've never seen you get into
an argument with anyone, that I recall. Certainly not in the
way Paul does.

Naturally you'll have strong views on things related to adaptive
tuning, but I don't imagine that being a great problem somehow,
and mostly that is to do with defending your own techniques
against criticism - I'm sure we can all agree that it is an
important and significant section of the FAQ, and that since
you are the main one in the field, basically you should do
whatever is relevant for the Adaptive tuning FAQ entries,
and field any newbie questions that need to be answered in
the FAQ.

Hopefully if anyone else has something they want to write on
adaptive tuning, and it is interesting and relevant, you'll
be happy to include it even if it doesn't coincide with
your own views, or even is critical of them? Even, work with them
and help them get their entry into shape? I think perhaps
you would.

There's not much at all for you to do right now, I agree.

Perhaps just wait a bit? Sometimes the ability to stand back
and let things happen when there is nothing particularly
needing to be fixed is exactly what one needs in the
editor.

So, I still vote for you as editor, though if you want to
abdicate of course you can! Maybe someone else will step
into the role if you don't want to do it.

I rather expect Paul may agree, he wasn't that keen on taking
on the role of FAQ editor, if you remember.

I did think he would be ideal because of his clear way of
doing things, and getting things in order, but on reflection,
perhaps that's not quite what we need for this particular
situation.

Anyway, all htis is just a point of view, and somehting to
think about,...

Back to work on the TL archive!

Robert

Hi John,

Glad you are staying on as editor / keeper of the FAQ.

Perhaps there won't be much for you to do for a while but I
think we will be glad of it later.

I'm going to have a go at finishing hte faq tree program,
then maybe we can go on from there.

Robert