Keep away from this one - you don't want any of it getting on your
shoes. This has nothing to do with Plone being deficient, and
everything to do with would be politicos wanting to seem sensitive by
Anything we could possibly say has already been said by residents of
the community - read the comments to this article if you have any
The press lives by maximizing the number of people looking at their
pages. Anything you do to go after them just adds eyeballs. Its the
perfect example of the old adage - "Never wrestle with a pig - you
both get dirty - and the pig likes it."
Austin is spending $357,000 to analyse what their website needs in
order to succeed. I'll be interesting in seeing the outcome of that -
as well as the price tag of the actual site when it goes out for bids.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Steve McMahon <st...@dcn.org> wrote:
> As a former newspaper brat, I'll just say that this falls far short of
> what's needed to prove product libel, so there's no legal standing.
> Also, IMHO, this makes Austin look a whole lot worse than Plone. It looks
> like a place where the web techs need government assistance.
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Matt Hamilton <ma...@netsight.co.uk>
>> What is the best way of us handling this? That article makes some harsh
>> comments about Plone. If Plone were some large corporate I would imagine
>> that lawyers would be swinging into action now.
>> Do we want to publish some kind of official statement in response? Or
>> privately contact that newspaper and ask them to retract their comment. It
>> is a quote though so I don't know legal standing. Or do we just keep our
>> head down and not draw attention to it?
>> Evangelism mailing list
Evangelism mailing list