My opinions exactly match Ken's below.
- Sam Ruby
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
it looks like several issues are getting conflated again.
1. should people be permitted to have/publish *.apache.org/~name pages? 2. should they follow any sort of guidelines? 3. should there be a list of them? 4. should a list be mandatory or opt-in only? 5. is it an all-or-nothing proposition (everyone has them or no-one does)?
here's my personal take on these questions:
1. should people be permitted to have/publish *.apache.org/~name pages?
+1
2. should they follow any sort of guidelines?
-0 (+1 if it's no more than 'don't put anything here that might reflect poorly on the asf')
3. should there be a list of them?
+1. data-driven, either through something in peoples' cvs.apache.org/~name/ directory, like the one-off '.nopublish' i mentioned earlier, or a ~/.homepage like sam (?) suggested, or whatever.
4. should a list be mandatory or opt-in only?
opt-in, of course.
5. is it an all-or-nothing proposition (everyone has them or no-one does)?
-1. someone tries to force its opinion on me about how i may choose to express myself and describe my participation in the asf, i tell it to sod off in no uncertain terms. if someone doesn't like it, then it should a) not do it, and b) not look at others. but don't obstruct people who think the idea has value, particularly since it won't affect *you* in any way. (generic 'you' there, not anyone in mind at all.)
