George Herbert wrote:>
Any open source project, content or code or
whatever, is subject to or
at risk of attacks. This is a fact of life.
Ah, so tough on the people who are being adversely affected, libeled and
attacked? We tell them that it is a risk we (sorry, they?) have to run.
A fact of life 9for them)?
After all the intensive efforts to set and maintain and enforce BLP
policies, no outsider can reasonably claim we aren't trying.
Sorry, but that's crap. Our 'solutions' are utterly unrealistic.
No insider is going to claim we're succeeding perfectly, either.
We can't be perfect. To attain our project's goals, we have to
balance technology, people's time, and policies. Lacking "approved
version" code, we're doing a pretty good approximation of optimally
given what our project stands for and the resource constraints.
Do we also have to balance the harm done to bystanders? Or does
collateral damage not feature in the accounting analysis?
Doc
Here Here!! I entered Wikipedia Dispute Resolution & Arbitration in Good
Faith, only to be viciously defamed in the midst of an ArbCom hearing, with
ArbCom turning a blind eye, by default rubber stamping the perpetrators
attacks. This problem can be ignored for two years, as seems the intent,
but it *must* be dealt wioth sooner of later.
Rob Smith
aka Nobs01