Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> David Crossley escribi??:
> > Thanks Tim, your comments are spot on.
> > Tim Williams wrote:
> > [ snip ]
> > > Having said all this, I personally think that David's change was a bit
> > > hasty. We don't sensor anyone else's "live-site" contribution, why
> > > would we filter our own fellow committer? If Thorsten wants that to
> > > be his tag line for his personal site, what say to do we have in that?
> > > It's his personal web site.
> > It wasn't hasty. I thought long and hard about that.
> > I don't see it as censoring.
> Well I actually do see it as censoring and like Tims idea
> Tim Williams escribi??:
> > Since we as the PMC actually endorse all other content on the site,
> > maybe this live-sites page needs a disclaimer at the top saying that
> > the Forrest PMC, commiters, and developers provide these links for
> > examples and information only - we do not endorse any particular
> > product, service, or information linked from this page?
> > It is just the same as
> > any change that we make to code or docs. If we see
> > something that we reckon is not correct or could be
> > improved, then we change it. If other people think
> > that it needs discussion or needs to be reverted,
> > then say so as we are doing now.
> The live site links are provided from user of forrest.
As i said, there have been various occasions already that
required a change to their "contribution". For example
some waffled on for far longer than the other listed sites.
> If e.g. nokia uses forrest for they site, it would probably be
> nokia connecting people
> If you change this because you think "is not correct" then nokia will
> ask that the link will be changed back or removed. I do not agree that
> we should change site tags from our user. To use your own words: Where
> would we stop (or not)?
Committers have every right to do whatever they see fit.
Ideally we would only change things on this page
where they might have adverse affects on the health
of our community. Such was my intent.
> > In the past i have made other changes to this
> > live-sites doc and to other docs that linked
> > to sites that were not relevant. (Not saying
> > that this case is not relevant.)
> Removing dead links is one thing, changing site descriptions a *totally*
> different one.
> > Thorsten, don't take any of this personally.
> > We are still a new project and need to set our
> > direction. As before i am using real-life
> > situations to mould that.
> Well, lucky for me I am not soft-skinned and had enough opportunities to
> grow it thick.
> I think we should not change the link texts from live sites.
> > I see this current situation as an important
> > aspect of community-building.
> Well, or the opposite. See the mail from Maurice.
That email has some incorrect statements that i
will try to address separately.
> > It is not about the "history". Anyone who
> > is interested can find that in the archives
> > or we can try to build a concise timeline.
> With information from the archive and svn/cvs this is *really* time
> consuming. Further how should new people know what to look for? The
> argument "it is all in the archive and in the commit log" is like
> telling somebody looking for a needle in a haystack.
Perhaps we can try to build a concise timeline
of events to give them some clues for search.
The changes.html should also provide some clues.
Committers need to take more care with that
to ensure that most code/doc contributions are
acknowledged (including our own).