On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 02:33:30AM +0200, Moshe Zadka wrote:

... On a related note, what is the current status of the PSA? Is it officially dead?

The PSA was always kind of a (legal) fiction with the basic intent to help provide some funding for Python development. Since that isn't occurring at CNRI any more, the PSA is a bit moot. There was always some idea that maybe the PSA would be the "sponsor" (and possibly the beneficiary) of the conferences. That wasn't ever really formalized either.

[Moshe Zadka]

The current FAQ is horribly out of date.

The password is Spam. Fix it <wink>.

I think the FAQ-Wizard method has proven itself not very efficient (for example, apparently no one noticed until now that it's not working <0.2 wink>).

I'm afraid almost nothing on python.org with an active component works today (not searches, not the FAQ Wizard, not the 2.0 Wiki, ...). If history is any clue, these will remain broken until Guido gets back from vacation.

Is there any hope putting the FAQ in Misc/, having a script which scp's it to the SF page, and making that the official FAQ?

Would be OK by me. I'm more concerned that the whole of python.org has barely been updated since March; huge chunks of the FAQ are still relevant, but, e.g., the Job Board hasn't been touched in over 3 months; the News got so out of date Guido deleted the whole section; etc.

On a related note, what is the current status of the PSA? Is it officially dead?

It appears that CNRI can only think about one thing at a time <0.5 wink>. For the last 6 months, that thing has been the license. If they ever resolve the GPL compatibility issue, maybe they can be persuaded to think about the PSA. In the meantime, I'd suggest you not renew <ahem>.

[Moshe]

Well, Andrew, I know if I leave you any more time, you won't be able to resist the urge. OK, I'll volunteer. Can't do anything right now, but expect to see an updated version posted on my site soon. If people will think it's a good idea, I'll move it to Misc/. Fred, if the some-xml-format-to-HTML you're working on is in any sort of readiness, I'll use that to format the FAQ.

Moshe, if your solution is to turn the FAQ into a document with a single editor again, I think you're not doing the community a favor. Granted, we could add some more sections (easy enough for me if someone tells me the new section headings and which existing questions go where) and there is a lot of obsolete information. But I would be very hesitant to drop the notion of maintaining the FAQ as a group collaboration project. There's nothing wrong with the FAQ wizard except that the password (Spam) should be made publicly known... I've also noticed that Bjorn Pettersen has made a whole slew of useful updates to various sections, mostly updates about new 2.0 features or syntax.

Having used Perl in the last couple of weeks, I learned to appreciate the fact that the FAQ is a standard part of the documentation.

Does that mean more than that it should be linked to from http://www.python.org/doc/ ? It's already there in the side bar; does it need a more prominent position? I used to include the FAQ in Misc/ (Ping's Misc/faq2html.py script is a last remnant of that), but gave up after realizing that the on-line FAQ is much more useful than a single text file. In my eyes, the best thing you (and everyone else) could do, if you find the time, would be to use the FAQ wizard to fix or delete out-of-date entries. To delete an entry, change its subject to "Deleted" and remove its body; I'll figure out a way to delete them from the index. Because FAQ entries can refer to each other (and are referred to from elsewhere) by number, it's not safe to simply renumber entries. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

[Andrew Kuchling]

Why multiply the number of mechanisms required to maintain things? We already use CVS for other documentation; why not use it for the FAQ as well?

The search facilities of the FAQ wizard are invaluable, and so is the ability for "just users" to update the info from within their browsers. There are two problems with the FAQ in practice: 1. It doesn't get updated enough. We can't fix that by making it harder to update! 2. It's *only* available via the web interface. We should ship a text or HTML snapshot with releases; perhaps even do the usual Usenet periodic FAQ-posting thing.