g this archival note - in situ -
accordingly.
At any event, here's kindly acknowledging all feedback and comments received
both publicly and privately to date, and looking forward to a next round -
whenever, whatever :-)
[1] http://loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html
[2] http://o
Hi Kathey,
Good to hear from you :-)
Let me try stepping through the issues you raise in turn below at this
stage, with a view to keeping all options open, as ever, in due course:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Kathey Marsden wrote:
> On 8/19/2010 1:00 AM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee wr
be openly
ascertained.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <
a.g.bhattachar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 20100722 / APORIA WORK / XIIX
>
> PROPOSAL SUMMARY
>
> Previously at Apache, we have had a list named "wo...@a.o" that both men
> and women have po
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Here at Apache projects are free to define their own code of conduct.
>
For womAn@, if ever it be a project, anon code would begin:
"the timing of our actions are the window to our soul: know here the sound
of one hand clapping"
(thanks Ros
Good idea Joe - happy to contribute to a slide on the intersection between
womAn@ and CREST whenever Justin's ready ;-) Best, A
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Ping jerenkrantz as he has given several such presos.
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Tim Williams
form the process.
>
> -1 to the proposed womAn mailing list.
>
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <
> a.g.bhattachar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > as ever, my focus here is on process
>
o as we continue to talk through what
may otherwise be rendered missed understandings only.
>
> Sent from my mobile device.
>
> On 31 Jul 2010, at 09:19, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <
> a.g.bhattachar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jean,
> >
> > Thanks for replying
possibly different
number in, say, 7 days time?
Best, A
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
>
>
>
> Have just come across a curious parallel to this, perhaps, in the arena of
>> Golf tournament sponsorship - IBM sponsor
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Kathey Marsden wrote:
> It is actually my hope that a separate list will not be necessary as I tend
> to like a more integrated approach.(I did not much care, for example,
> explaining to my middle school son why a free technology camp this summer
> was being
Just a note to mark 7 days since the date of this proposal - thank you for
all responses so far - still listening ;-) best, A
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <
a.g.bhattachar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 20100722 / APORIA WORK / XIIX
>
> PROPOSAL SUMMARY
&g
Yes, and ? :-)
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> To quote this proposal: WTF?
>
>
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Will you be running for the board next year?
>
Personally would prefer establishing a first international Royal Charter for
FLOSS before retiring to any board
> This is da vinci level genius. I love it :)
>
Thanks - though may take the Dan Browns a little longer to figue
Golfing rules anticipate visual impairments to varying degrees, and in cases
where required, a "coach" or "guide" can be incorporated into play [1]
Best, A
[1] http://www.blindgolf.co.uk/howdone.php
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:22 PM,
20100722 / APORIA WORK / XIIX
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
Previously at Apache, we have had a list named "wo...@a.o" that both men and
women have posted and subscribed to at varying degrees of overt
participation.
Now, personally would like to propose having a single email address, to be
named "wo...@apach
"So much emptiness,
even with the windows shut,
especially since no one ever lived inside.
How do we listen to silence
and learn to keep listening?"
Empty Houses in Baja California
Poems No.27
by Kenneth Liberman
(my friend and mentor)
hetorical question, am sure you understand.
Best, A
> Forgive me for asking these questions. They are genuine questions, I am
> concerned that I'm missing an important point here.
>
> Ross
>
>
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-women/200910.mbox/browser
&
a need to hold up this action. So I'm not going to
> vote -1 in order to have the vote rephrased.
>
> Ross
>
>
> Sent from my mobile device.
>
> On 18 Jul 2010, at 07:49, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <
> a.g.bhattachar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
&
Hi,
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
> It was "noise" because on a busy morning I was too distracted to read
> Bertrand's original post carefully and, thus, missed your point, which was
> responding directly to what he wrote. I hate it when that happens :-) but
> no harm done.
>
Thanks for kind reply,
Hi Jean,
Certainly doesn't sound like noise to me - but maybe we should continue this
conversation on the women@ list ?
Best, A
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>> Thanks -- that's a terrific suggestion to auto-respond that wo...@activity
>>
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> A little history is probably relevant here. Woman@ was set up on Aug 7
> 2005, during that time it has had very little activity with the most recent
> email being Sept 14th 2007.
> The fact is that people are not looking for a list call
-1 (unbinding)
because this vote, and the "dot it" slip, reminds me of a problem of
relevance when "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" when framing any vote,
so to speak
in this case, would suggest that there may be a significant difference
between the options of:
(a) closing women@ and
(b) s
21 matches
Mail list logo
