Should this go into the Wikki? Should we set up a Wikki page with lists current possible hosting sites?
Aldon -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jim sloan Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 8:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hackers] node hosting I said it was "taking too much energy" not wasting it - my point was not to drop it. I suggest that a working group should investigate and define the legal parameters that would apply to any group that would want to provide web presence to a grass roots political campaign. In turn that information can be used by the h4d group to advise groups that want to host it themselves and it will also define how h4d could offer a hosting service for groups that need to leap that technical hurdle with some help. regards jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "CMR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [hackers] node hosting > > 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. > > If I'm correct, the issue of our hosting "turn key" solutions was never > settled one way or another. Zach revived that topic for discussion with his > message this AM. This list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is, at least in part, for > discussing issues of project wide scope, both present and future, and > discussing project mission. > > Also, if I am correct, the developers list was created for immediate > development issues just so those who didn't want to receive non-directly > development related issue related posts don't have to. > > Whether or not the "turn key" idea is a waste of "energy" or not, my offer > was to help out if the eventual consensus was that we wanted to offer that > feature. I'm fine with it if we decide against that, but I think we ought to > be allowed to discuss the merits of the idea, if any, in order to reach > that consensus. > > Thanks > CMR > > <--enter gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here--> >
