Klaus,

Just to be clear I thought the article was interesting, but I had a lot of
problems with the idea too.  Mostly I figured that it was more valuable to
have a popular fork of a project then to allow some new leader to take it
over.  My biggest concern is that someone could hijack someone's reputation
by resuming a project that was abandoned.  Also it would be possible to have
a non-qualified person leading and harming a group.  For me most of the
problems addressed by this document are solved by popularity.  If something
is really needed then the developers will find a way to fix or replace it.

Still it is a good thing to think about and an interesting idea.

Ron Teitelbaum



> From: Klaus D. Witzel
> 
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:05:26 +0100, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
> > I thought this was interesting.
> >
> > http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2007/01/abandoned-projects-bus-proofing-
> and.html
> 
> I understand and letting another admin, who is under control of the
> community, make such a decision is a good idea.
> 
> But making a decision depending on an outdated or (fraudulent) bouncing
> email address is not.
> 
> /Klaus
> 
> > Ron
> >
> >> From: Stéphane Rollandin
> >>
> >> Craig Latta wrote:
> >> >      Since copyright persists after death in many jurisdictions, the
> >> > current stance is that we will not include those contributions
> without
> >> > some other indication as to their licensing terms.
> >>
> >> that's sad.
> >>
> >> I would not like than, when I die, my public work becomes unavailable
> >> just because I'm not here anymore to sign a paper. That's another kind
> >> of death.
> >>
> >> Shall we now all carry an "intellectual property donor" card so that we
> >> can drop dead anytime without fear that our fellow human beings feel
> >> obliged to forget what we have done ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Stef
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>