> 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-->
