Scott Gray wrote: > On 16/03/2010, at 12:24 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > >> Scott Gray wrote: >>> On 16/03/2010, at 12:15 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >>> >>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>> Thanks for your understanding Ruth and sure, I think it's fine to leave >>>>> things as they are while you are working on a solution. >>>> So it's ok for Ruth to leave something in the project, but it's not >>>> for Hans? >>> I'm not sure what you're saying, Ruth has accepted the problem and agreed >>> to fix it, as a good faith measure I don't see the harm in allowing the >>> link to remain in place temporarily. Of course, as always, this is just my >>> opinion and I'm happy to discuss other options with the community. >>> >>> Which specific Hans situation are you referring to? There have been enough >>> of them lately that it isn't immediately clear. >> The twitter link. > > That was an entirely different situation and I don't think you can draw > parallels here. > > The major issue for me was that Hans was advertising an unofficial twitter > account as being an official resource directly on our main page. I'm still > completely convinced that getting it off the main page ASAP was absolutely > the right thing to do. > > As I described earlier in this thread my concerns about the link to Ruth's > website are of an entirely different nature.
It's not, if the discussion turns to actually making it official(which is where it started to go).
