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
You must change the term here. Because they already have this. So its
"should we take it away"... to that I vote -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')
-1 (-1 in that case because it adds the "who decides")
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.
+1 agreed.
4. should a list be mandatory or opt-in only?
opt-in, of course.
well actually technically .nopublish is opt out, but +1 either way.
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.)
-1 agreed! No truer thing has been said in recent times!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
