David Reid wrote: > > > 1. should people be permitted to have/publish *.apache.org/~name pages? > > > > +1 > > They've traditionally been used for patches and so with seemed like a good > use. For personal information I'm inclined to disagree that it's a valid or > even desirable use.
then we disagree. > > 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') > > And who gets to decide? Jesus - not another council. I mean what would we > call it? In the vain of this entire community stuff we'd need to setup a > mailing list straight away to discuss the name alone - and then the problems > of who shoudl be told... Could take a long time. > > Ken - did you think that last bit through to it's logical conslusion? yes. i happen to believe in trusting people, not policing them. so tell committers they can put whatever they like there, as long as it won't reflect poorly on the hosting organisation. that's just good manners. > Rhetorical questions : > Have we all gone mad? > Does anyone feel this sort of lengthy discussion is really a good use of > their time? Does it help to foster a greater feeling of community (the > definition of which could be another topic that would spawn a lot of > worthless messages no doubt)? you are under no obligation to participate, and i rather resent the implication i see that you think *other* people shouldn't spend their time on this list in a way *you* would rather not. perhaps that's not your message above, but that's what i'm reading in it, and my previous remark applies: a) don't participate if you think it's a waste of time, b) don't read others' messages likewise, and c) don't obstruct people who choose to spend their time this way. i apologize if i have misconstrued your message.
