http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/inviations-tranlated-letter-plans-tp76p97.html
>yeah - i think that should work. especially because to edit the wiki
>you will be required to sign-in - so that will help us keep track of
>people.
>
>actually - let me re-think that. maybe it's a better idea not to send
>that info around. How about we use the same password for everyone,
>but to find out the address of the site, the mailing list, the
>password to get to the wiki - they have to respond to that email
>address. It adds a bit of human touch, makes the barrier a bit higher
>(which is good as long as we tell them that they decided later whether
>they want to be co-founders) and it should less the impact of the
>email forwarding that is bound to happen.
>
>so we each would have to deal with the people we invited individually
>- but they each would get the same password. (except for using the
>wiki - where they would have to set up an account).
>
>if we split the invitees in 4 that works out well in terms of each of
>them having someone to contact and none of us being overwhelmed.
>
>? good? / bad?
>
>
>
>
>On 12/13/05, Patrick Dinnen <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>>One small practical question. Where we say in the invites that people
>>should contact Stephane or I for Wiki/mailing list passwords. I assume
>>that we're going to give out the standard user/password to everyone.
>>If that's right is there any reason not to include the login details
>>in the invite? We could add a request that people not pass the login
>>around. That would be one less barrier to people getting involved and
>>take some work off Stephane and I.
>>
>>Patrick
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca>
>
>