<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Oct 30, 2020, 14:31 by baloo@ursamundi.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 5:03 AM Rory McCann <<a href="mailto:rory@technomancy.org" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">rory@technomancy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div>On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 10:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:<br></div><div> > Rory, I am absolutely sure there was no bad intent in the choice of <br></div><div> > format and platform, but given where this discussion went so fast, I <br></div><div> > believe the setting should be reconsidered, evaluating the possibility <br></div><div> > of choosing an open platform.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> Hmm, I do want to support open channels. Do you have an idea of an alternative?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I may be biased, but how about the fediverse? <br></div></div></div></blockquote><div>In this case I would support doing both. I am supporting open channels (and mirroring<br></div><div>such discussion in some open non-proprietary place) but reaching out to people using<br></div><div>Redding/Fb/whatever makes sense and is a good idea.<br></div> </body>
</html>