It would indeed be great if we could use an arbitrary version of an object
to continue to build upon. Now, I have to start all over on each object that
was touched by somebody who didn't agree (yet) to the CTs, which is
annoying, as it disrupts the entire history.


2011/9/5 Ian Sergeant <>

> I wrote:
> > To address your question specifically, what happens to data placed in the
> > public domain by the author on the wiki, who then specifically declines
> > the CT?  Well in the first case, if the edits are just a trivial
> > modification to a fully CT-compliant version - I'd say just hide
> > them.
> Russ Nelson <> wrote on 03/09/2011 01:34:09 PM:
> > What problem does this solve?
> If data in this class is accepted as compliant with the CT then it
> obviously solves no problem.  I think this is your point?
> Just repeating, like I have in all my emails, that I'm only proposing that
> the API grants the ability to hide/remove data whose author has specifically
> rejected the CT, allowing us to better manage the transition to a
> CT-compliant database.  By allowing CT-compliant editors to modify and save
> CT-compliant earlier versions rather than CT-non-compliant later versions we
> avoid the possibility of generating more CT-non-compliant tainted data than
> we have already.
> The acceptance or otherwise of this peculiar class of data where the author
> has on the one hand said that anyone can do anything with their data, but
> later tried to retract that by declining the contributor terms is an
> interesting issue of policy.   I can see both sides of the argument.
>  However, I believe the changes I am suggesting will be of procedural value,
> regardless of how these policy issues are resolved.
> Ian.
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
talk mailing list

Reply via email to