On 4/20/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
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