Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-community-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 4167 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jan 2003 20:45:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact community-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: community@apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list community@apache.org Received: (qmail 4098 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2003 20:45:35 -0000 Received: from fia224-72.dsl.hccnet.nl (HELO foem.leiden.webweaving.org) (62.251.72.224) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 31 Jan 2003 20:45:35 -0000 Received: from foem (foem [10.11.0.2]) by foem.leiden.webweaving.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0VKjcwc034992 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:45:38 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dirkx@webweaving.org) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:45:38 +0100 (CET) From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik X-X-Sender: dirkx@foem.leiden.webweaving.org To: community@apache.org Subject: RE: Wiki - we have a problem :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030131214418.B903-100000@foem.leiden.webweaving.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > I agree. But the message, as posted, didn't deal with improper content. Correct. Though I can *well* understand PMC's which clearly keep the message within their own Scope. As that gives a very fair and clear policing guideline. > The issue it raised was simply about oversight from a corporate liability > perspective, essentially guarding against illegal behavior, and that is what > I responded to in my reply. I mentioned my observation that it was a > relatively weak standard for oversight. If more oversight is necessary, a > different set of issues comes up. Dw --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org