next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Andrew D. Wright wrote: > On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Christopher Majka wrote: > > > This fee schedule was originally posted by by Doug McCann: > > Who most expressly did not repeat did not refer to the top three > fees as being for individual members. We do not repeat do not give out 25 > Megs of disk space to individual members under any circumstance and your > alteration of this document to say this was the case was not approved by > anyone specifically including the CCN Board and IP Chair. I have neither the time nor inclination to quibble about this further. No substantive changes were made to the information there, only to try to clarify (at least insofar as I understood them) how they applied. I volunteered to do this simply to assist the IP Committee and Operations [previously all such inquiries had been referred to David Murdoch via a mailto link] to facilitate the availability and clarity of information to those who might be making inquiries. In any event, I've jettisoned this page. I'll leave it to others to field and interpret inquiries as to IP fees and structures. > > > Does it make any sense to you whatsoever that we would > > > increase default non-member quotas by a factor of 50? > > > > I'm not sure what this means, however, if you are in doubt you should > > consult the Board who determined this fee schedule whence it came fide > > Doug McCann. > > It means that you had altered, on your own and without any > consultation, the information on the interim.html page Doug McCann put up > to read that we had suddenly increased individual non-member disk quotas > from 500 K to 25,000 K then put this unauthorized interpretation on the > live publically accessible CCN website and that somehow you thought that > this made sense. Nonsense: the whole process of installing and discussing its clarity and interpretation were made (as they properly are) in continuous consultation with ccn-ip (with the ccn-board in on the loop for some of the discussions). Let me make one other thing perfectly clear: I am perfectly prepared to discuss with the CCN Chair and Vice Chair and Head of the IP Committee anything which I have undertaken and if they have an axe to grind, I'll grind it with them: not with you and your spin on 'alteration', 'consultation', 'authorization' and 'approval' which are entierly your own. > > It is already (at least on an interim basis) being referred to viz-a-viz > > fee inquiries. If the Board is not comfortable with these fee structures > > then they should so indicate. Interim, however, is usually taken to mean > > 'for the time being.' > > > > When Doug posted the information to CCN-IP & the CCN-Board I immediately > > replied to both lists expressing my approval and voicing my intention to > > add the information to the appropriate area of the IP documents. No one > > voiced any objection and therefor this is what I have done. > > > > > Are you on drugs? > > > > You should learn how to confine your remarks to the subject at hand. > > > And you should learn to look before you leap. There are some people who might not be amused at such sophmoric insinuations that they are drug users. Regards, Christopher Majka _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Christopher Majka <aa051@chebucto.ns.ca> Editor-in-Chief: Chebucto Community Net - Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada URL = http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Home.html _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects