baloo at ursamundi.org
Sat Apr 18 22:05:05 BST 2009
> just a question of setting the standard.
1) I'm not sure one who doesn't follow the established standards set by
English and common email convention of making the conversation flow in
chronological order rather than random reverse order when quoting other
people has much room to speak on the subject of setting new standards.
2) If we have nothing to hide (we don't), and especially given that
nothing about OSM is anonymous, what's with this irrational insistence
that anonymity is the standard all the sudden? Does OSM as a project
even care or attempt to log who is receiving the data to begin with?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the dev