Pieren wrote:
There definitely is not general agreement at this time that this passage
should be changed.
Could you please point out in archives (wiki or mailing list) where
the separate account became generaly agreed ? Or you can simply tell
me the communication channel and an approximate
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Check the list of arguments presented here for the mandatory separate account:
1. it's easier to separate from normal contributions
2. it's more effecient for sourcing
3. it's easier to identify the source if we change the
Pieren wrote:
Check the list of arguments presented here for the mandatory separate account:
Pieren - please stop banging on about this - we know that the current process is
flawed but it WAS put in place when problems arose in the Canadian imports, and
it IS current practice. If one 'local
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Check the list of arguments presented here for the mandatory separate account:
1. it's easier to separate from normal contributions
2. it's more effecient for sourcing
3. it's easier to identify the source if we change the
] Import guidelines proposal update
Pieren wrote:
Check the list of arguments presented here for the mandatory separate
account:
Pieren - please stop banging on about this - we know that the current process
is flawed but it WAS put in place when problems arose in the Canadian imports
Pierre Béland wrote:
Check the list of arguments presented here for the mandatory separate account:
1. it's easier to separate from normal contributions
2. it's more effecient for sourcing
3. it's easier to identify the source if we change the license. We
faced that issue in the past for ODbl
2012-09-20 Lester Caine lester at lsces.co.uk
Comment fields are not documented as well as they should be and the
'problem' that instigated this thread is to my view of what's
on line a
very good example of why there WAS a problem. Correctly flagging
information is essential and we do
Béland Pierre wrote:
2012-09-20 Lester Caine lester at lsces.co.uk
Comment fields are not documented as well as they should be and the 'problem'
that instigated this thread is to my view of what's
on line a very good example of why there WAS a problem. Correctly flagging
information is
2012-09-20 Lester Caine wrote
Alright insisting on a 'new account' may be wrong, but identifying the
'import source' somewhere is not unreasonable?
We do have the problem of the 'language' used to inform other users and some
English translations on some of the
cadastre import stuff would
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
There definitely is not general agreement at this time that this passage
should be changed.
Could you please point out in archives (wiki or mailing list) where
the separate account became generaly agreed ? Or you can simply
Pieren writes:
Could you please point out in archives (wiki or mailing list) where
the separate account became generaly agreed ?
It's always been generally agreed upon as far as I know. You could
look at the wiki and see when the text was first edited to suggest a
separate account. I would do
11 matches
Mail list logo
