ing
> Admin: Admin, editing.
>
> -Neil
>
> Original message
> >Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:56:44 -0500 (CDT)
> >From: zachary rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: [hackers] Transparency
> >To: Neil Drumm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Cc: <
message
>Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:56:44 -0500 (CDT)
>From: zachary rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [hackers] Transparency
>To: Neil Drumm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Yes this makes sense to me - but i think they should be authe
Submit things - as in be active in development conversations. This means
using the communication tools, posting blog entries, etc. Depending on
what we do with the CVS (keep SF or set up out own tree) we can handle
code submission authentication in the same way.
-Zack
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, CMR w
> Yes this makes sense to me - but i think they should be authenticated
> before they can submit things. Comments?
>
Submit content, as in posts, blogs, profiles, endorsements.. right? not
scripts/code etc.. I haven't seen any specs indicating we 're inviting folks
to submit the latter (at this s
Yes this makes sense to me - but i think they should be authenticated
before they can submit things. Comments?
-Zack
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Neil Drumm wrote:
> Right now we are kinda opaque. People have to sign up to see whats going on. I can
> do whatever with the Drupal permissions or even use
Right now we are kinda opaque. People have to sign up to see whats going on. I can do
whatever with the Drupal permissions or even use a second instance of Drupal for our
internal communicaion. Are we okay with letting our lurkers be anonymous? I plan on
letting them have privileges to view most
