On 07/08/11 18:04, Rob Weir wrote:
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Terry Ellison<[email protected]> wrote:
On 07/08/11 16:55, Eike Rathke wrote:
Hi Rob,
On Sunday, 2011-08-07 11:27:26 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
So assigning an open license is entirely optional. I could upload a
page under by personal copyright and demand payment of 20 chickens or
1 goat for copying the document. For example:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/FAQ/General/What_is_a_good_rhyme_about_OpenOffice%3F
Hehe, Clayton was very fast to ensure you won't need a new shed for all
those chickens and goats ;-)
People monitor the Special:RecentChanges page on a trust-but-verify basis.
Rob, if you did this for real rather than to make a point here, then you
would have your account blocked. 1st warning ;-)
There was nothing in my contribution that violated any published terms
of use for the wiki. It was not offensive, illegal, spam or
vandalism. You might argue that it was irrelevant or misplaced. But
if we have non-project members deleting contributions from committers
based on their views of what they consider to be irrelevant content,
and banning accounts, all without discussion or approval by the PPMC,
then that is entirely unacceptable. Note further that this was in the
FAQ section of the doc, which I would consider to be "core"
documentation under PPMC oversight.
Rob, again, you are confusing the current state with future state. A
basic rule of migration: don't.
But your points are valid once we've transitioned the wiki to the project.
Apart from the fact that being a PPMC member means that you should have
enough sense not to create content that is indexed nightly by Google and
could be pricked up publicly. What sort of impression of Apache's
professionalism would this create?
