From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NpVAa-00036k-51 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:18:28 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8E334E0D49; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:18:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 882CBE0D2B for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:18:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3367E1B4019 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:18:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.556 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vtWqM00FV0YM for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43EB81B4025 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:18:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NpVAD-0004VD-Bx for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:18:05 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:18:05 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:18:05 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo calendar for tracking Gentoo events Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:17:55 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <201003100745.21823.vapier@gentoo.org> <4B982596.2080606@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 00c36416-1923-48d7-912c-e72e6f250037 X-Archives-Hash: f1862f1e24c879fd8031b8ca1a4be618 Richard Freeman posted on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:04:54 -0500 as excerpted: > On 03/10/2010 04:42 PM, Duncan wrote: >> So a gmail account is now considered mandatory for Gentoo devs, at >> least if they want calendar access? >> >> What about those who might think that Google knows enough about them >> with search and the web crawling and database correlation Google does, >> and whatever ad serving might leak thru, and object to having a gmail >> account on principle? >> > Honestly, Google calendar works well enough that I'm not sure that I > like the idea of re-inventing the wheel. Maybe if somebody designed > some kind of open calendar access protocol that was comparable. I guess that's two separate objections. One is simply to the /assumption= /=20 that /everyone/ (well, all Gentoo devs interested in calendar activities,= =20 at least) has or at least doesn't object to getting a gmail account. I=20 suppose that's corrected to some degree by the posting itself, but it's a= n=20 assumption that really shouldn't be taken lightly, IMO. The other is to google /requiring/ a gmail account in the first place, bu= t=20 of course, gentoo really doesn't have much to do with that, except to=20 possibly refuse to use the tools so made available (gratis), which could=20 be argued should be done, but is it worth it in practice? I don't know. The first one is what really hit me here tho. Why the assumption? If=20 it'd have been made explicit that this was something some might have an=20 issue with and they'd simply need to choose, it wouldn't have been so bad= =20 as the issue would have been recognized. So it was the simple assumption= =20 I found most offensive, and as I said, my post corrected that to some=20 degree, so... --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman