I've been following this for most of today and I am concerned that this bifurcation is taking too much energy. What I think needs to happen is that the legal issues need to be spelled out for anyone that would want to host a site (regardless of candidate). This information can be used by any interested party to host whatever they want.
I don't think that hosting is a problem for the h4d project. But if we have the information that relates to the above then we can help the "grass root nodes" avoid problems. It would then assist the h4d group in answering these questions from parties interested in using the h4d "branded" Drupal. Are there some legal resources out there (part of the h4d group) to run with this issue? It is a track that can run parallel to other sub-projects. regards jim On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 15:26, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: > Clarification needed: we're looking at the hosting options, and if I > understand correctly, a4d is moving but the node concept is stalled and may > generate a project that is not focused on one specific candidate or org. Is > that correct? > > I think we need to clarify the hosting requirements for the nodeless a4d to > determine what Polycot can do, can we revisit that? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Behalf Of Joshua Koenig > > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 12:19 PM > > To: zachary rosen > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [hackers] node hosting > > > > > > > Yes - I am all for it. The only concern is: if there is to strong a > > > connection / correlation between the Dean campaign and this non profit > > > service then the campaign is liable. > > > > Two points: > > > > 1) IMHO this should not be a non-profit venture. This is different from > > the idea of an academic project which will further the general goals of > > nodal/online politics. It needs to be non-partisan, but it's > > essentially a fee-for-service company, and that's all it should be. > > It's blogspot for a modified version of drupal. There are also > > strategic reasons for this (see my previous email). > > > > 2) As long as the class and quality of service offered is neutral, then > > it doesn't matter who sets it up. The proof is in the pudding, not in > > the pedigree. This would mean a stock turnkey install would not include > > a partisan drupal theme, but we could offer a theme gallery which users > > would be free to contribute to. > > > > cheers > > -josh > > > > >
