On Thursday 10 February 2005 19:42, Luk Claes wrote:
> > I've removed the controversal bits (website and nearest city) from the
> > policy. Would this version be alright to use?
>
> No, because than the 'Some parts of the consultant's information can be
> removed if they don't comply with this poli
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:00:13 +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
> martin f krafft wrote:
>> There are people
>> who want information from you, and those people have a right to this
>> information because it is *our* project, not yours.
>
> You have absolutely no right to demand /anything/ of me, /at all/
Luk Claes wrote:
> No, because than the 'Some parts of the consultant's information can be
> removed if they don't comply with this policy anymore.' is too weak
> unless there is mentioned that the consultant with an URL has to explain
> his/her consultant work on that URL, IMHO.
I would prefer no
Thomas Hood wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:00:13 +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
martin f krafft wrote:
There are people
who want information from you, and those people have a right to this
information because it is *our* project, not yours.
You have absolutely no right to demand /anything/ of me, /at a
aj wrote:
> If you want other people to do things for you in Debian, you need them
> to want to do it, you can't just go around trying to make life
> unpleasant for them if they don't.
OK. What would make ftpmasters want to tell the rest of the
project anything more about their work?
I know some
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:30:07 +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Thomas Hood wrote:
>> I think that mfk's request for information (quoted) was addressed to ajt
>> as an ftpmaster, not as a private person.
>
> Well, that's nice and all, but there's absolutely no difference between
> me as a private perso
6 matches
Mail list logo
