The FAQ has been frequently brought up in arguments about PVP compliance as an authoritative source on how to interpret the main specification text, even if the main text does not allow the same conclusions.
A specification stands on its own and must be interpreted only through the specification text. Ambiguities and imprecisions in specs are rarely an oversight, but intended, in order to allow different implementations/approaches.
An FAQ serves to give more insights into a specification and is not there to fix insufficiently worded sections, nor to be an authoritative source of interpretation. Such sections need to be fixed in the spec text, not be amended by an FAQ.
Additionally, the FAQ is not even versioned, making it even more questionable to use as an authoritative source for interpretation.
Motivation
The FAQ has been frequently brought up in arguments about PVP compliance as an authoritative source on how to interpret the main specification text, even if the main text does not allow the same conclusions.
E.g.: https://github.com/haskell-infra/hackage-trustees/issues/375#issuecomment-1815906394
Reasoning
A specification stands on its own and must be interpreted only through the specification text. Ambiguities and imprecisions in specs are rarely an oversight, but intended, in order to allow different implementations/approaches.
An FAQ serves to give more insights into a specification and is not there to fix insufficiently worded sections, nor to be an authoritative source of interpretation. Such sections need to be fixed in the spec text, not be amended by an FAQ.
Additionally, the FAQ is not even versioned, making it even more questionable to use as an authoritative source for interpretation.