* Manoj Srivastava (srivasta@debian.org) wrote: > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:07:51 -0500, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> said: > > I don't see it as all that much effort, I guess, but I do see it as > > something that we really should have *anyway* (the mirror policy, > > that is). I also don't feel that Debian will be corrupted by having > > money available to it, or perhaps at least not corrupted any more > > than it must already be (erm, we have it now...). > > It is how we get our money that is significant, I think. As to See, that's what I disagree with.. Once we have it I think the corruption due to it is going to happen regardless of how we got it. Of course, if we never actually use it, as some seem to advocate, then perhaps there wouldn't be any corruption or appearance of it, but I feel that's a disservice to those who were kind enough to donate it to begin with. > the mirror policy, I suppose it is inevitable, though I am getting > rather tired of the need to put up defensive rules and policies to > cover ones butt. I think it's not so much for us to cover ourselves, since I think in general we're unlikely to put things that could get us in trouble in the US on our servers, as it is to help our mirrors cover themselves... Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature