On 23/01/2009, at 9:15 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
I think that the links and content on our website should aim to be
family
friendly and work safe, as vague as that may be. I wasn't proposing
a set of
hard and fast rules for determining what is or isn't safe by these
standards. As
a community, we would have to judge each one on a case by case basis.
That's essentially what this thread was meant to be about. What does
the
community think? Is this link okay or not?
OK, my vote is that we avoid any judgement. Each link should have a
brief explanation both of what it is - and that's as simple as 'porn
site' - and how it uses couch i.e. justification for it's inclusion on
that page.
I think that not only improves the utility of the page, but also means
you won't be clicking on any link at work and be surprised to find
naked people. Also, it would require more effort by people submitting
a link - if the explanation of how couch is used isn't detailed
enough, then the link isn't accepted.
Furthermore, the page should have an explicit disclaimer at the top of
the page about it NOT being an endorsement, and warning people to read
the site description.
IMO this would allow us to strictly focus on the technical criteria of
that page, whilst still allowing people to avoid opening any link that
is unsuitable either for them or their environment.
Personally, I'd like to see some porn site links on that page. Porn
sites have particular operation/traffic requirements, and if I saw
that CouchDB was suitable for that, I'd be more comfortable about
building a media server on CouchDB.
Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the
intelligent are full of doubt.
-- Bertrand Russell
