On 16/03/2010, at 12:24 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > Scott Gray wrote: >> On 16/03/2010, at 12:15 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >> >>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>> Thanks for your understanding Ruth and sure, I think it's fine to leave >>>> things as they are while you are working on a solution. >>> So it's ok for Ruth to leave something in the project, but it's not >>> for Hans? >> >> I'm not sure what you're saying, Ruth has accepted the problem and agreed to >> fix it, as a good faith measure I don't see the harm in allowing the link to >> remain in place temporarily. Of course, as always, this is just my opinion >> and I'm happy to discuss other options with the community. >> >> Which specific Hans situation are you referring to? There have been enough >> of them lately that it isn't immediately clear. > > The twitter link.
That was an entirely different situation and I don't think you can draw parallels here. The major issue for me was that Hans was advertising an unofficial twitter account as being an official resource directly on our main page. I'm still completely convinced that getting it off the main page ASAP was absolutely the right thing to do. As I described earlier in this thread my concerns about the link to Ruth's website are of an entirely different nature.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
