Subject: Re: #1008 USEFOR 1.5: Suggested language on "followup"

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:46:29 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>And may I also say that the text that Bruce has quoted from the earlier
>drafts was written *before* someone came on this list to point out the use
>of References in multi-part FAQs (a practice I had not been aware of, but
>which seemed eminently sensible).

It is such a common practice that I cannot imagine that anyone familiar 
enough with news operations to be participating in rewriting the news 
standards would not know about it. I certainly did. I don't recall anyone 
saying "what a great surprise" when this was pointed out. We did say "we 
ought not prohibit this", and that's why I proposed a few word change to 
the definition of followup to include existing practice but not exclude
the ability to detect followups altogether.

>The *whole* of our discussions, proposed changes, etc. since then have
>arisen as a direct result of what that someone (I cannot recall who it
>was) said.

Removing the MUST/MUST NOT section was not the result of any discussion.

---

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 20:43:27 -0400

> the ability to detect followups altogether.

Matches my recollection.

> Removing the MUST/MUST NOT section was not the result of any discussion.

Ditto.