On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <and...@pitonyak.org> wrote: > If content is noticed and there is concern that there may be legal > ramifications, it seems reasonable that the content would be immediately > modified before review, which is what was done. > > So if I seem something that is wrong, should I fix it, or should I ask the > person that made the initial error to fix it? Are there specific guidelines > for this? Off hand, your comments lead me to believe that I should not
If there is a fire, put it out. Don't wait to discuss it. But immediately after you put out the fire explain what you did and why. If it is not a fire, then generally: 1) If you think the change is non-controversial, then JFDI. 2) If you think the change is controversial, then post the proposal to the list and look for lazy consensus. That means waiting a while to see if anyone objects. Note: Reverting someone's recent commit is almost guaranteed to be controversial, so you don't want to do that unless you think it is a fire. But be prepared to take some heat in that case, since some who never saw the fire will be saying, "WTF!? That antisocial bastard just sprayed water all over the place!" > modify existing content, I should always have the initial committer do it. No, please. Let's not set up exclusive domains of ownership. You should feel empowered to make changes in any area where you are technically competent, regardless of who else has worked in that area. Of course, in some areas we should have respect and deference for those with greater expertise in the area, and we would naturally want to review significant changes with them on the list. For example, although I can (and may) change the download scripts, I would not want to do that without getting review by Marcus. It is the expertise I respect, but that is different than a claim of control over an area. > Note that I have stuck pretty close to this so far -- so now you know one > reason that I have not modified any of our existing documentation; our > process does not allow for modifications reviewable by the initial creator. > I don't think you need to be that restrictive. Everything works best if many volunteers feel empowered to improve the work of others. > I don't have a good handle on which country hosts the Apache servers, but I > have mostly dealt with servers in the USA. I can barely comment on the laws > in the USA (where I live), much less those outside the USA. I do know that > in the USA, some content may not be referenced (such as a link to download > pirated software) that is perfectly fine to reference on a server in another > country. If this is done, however, there is precedent to hold the site owner > liable for content posted by another. > > I have no idea what the ramifications are for claiming trademark when you > don't have it, but based on what I know about Rob, I have an expectation > that he is far more in tune with this than I (even if he does not live in > the USA). > I do live in the US, in Massachusetts. Regards, -Rob > -- > Andrew Pitonyak > My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt > Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php >
