Cristian Driga wrote:
I for one vote against a separate site. It is strange how those willing
to break things were using the LACK OF AN AT LEAST A WIKI :) thing to do
that. Now that we have it, it moved to the leads...and in the end, the
plan of trying to fork showed up again. :)
I am not aware of anyone who said that there should be a new site before
because we didn't have at least a wiki, who are not saying that we need
a new site. Who do you have in mind?
Now, you say that having a wiki means that there is no longer a need for
a separate site. But on another post you just told me that we can't use
the wiki all that much because the server isn't powerful. Which is it?
Either we can use a wiki or we can't. Again, I reiterate my offer to
research what the wiki can provide if you can find out what hardware
resources it has.
We can and we will organize the existing OOo website easily to reflect
the changes in the marketing process. I for one I am convinced that for
large consumption by public, the strong servers we have now are the best.
Let's find out what the wiki site can do. Maybe it can do more than you
think. I volunteer to find out if you can find out the hardware resources.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org
/\/_/
/\/_/ I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for
\/_/ stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels
/ off of everything and let the problem solve itslef?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
