Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Cc: "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:05:58
Message-Id: 201007181602.55669.vapier@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC by "Petteri Räty"
On Sunday, July 18, 2010 15:51:11 Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 07/18/2010 10:37 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Sunday, July 18, 2010 11:20:57 Petteri Räty wrote: > >> On 07/18/2010 07:42 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> On Saturday, July 17, 2010 23:47:39 Alex Alexander wrote: > >>>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 03:13:22AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. wrote: > >>>>> I cross-posted this email to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-council mls > >>>>> as Brian used the former and Alex started this thread in the latter. > >>>>> Which ML do we want to use? > >>>> > >>>> IMO we should be using gentoo-council@lists.g.o for this. > >>>> Afterall, we are talking about the Council meeting agenda. > >>>> > >>>> Any topic that needs further discussion before a meeting should be > >>>> moved to its own -dev thread anyway. > >>> > >>> reality is that this probably wont work in practice. cc-ing both lists > >>> isnt a problem and lets devs know that the council is indeed doing > >>> work. > >> > >> Cross posting is annoying if you are on both lists and can lead to the > >> fragmentation of the thread. > > > > get a real mail client then. any modern one worth using handles > > duplicate mail ids just fine. > > Yes the first can be worked around (although archives still have > multiple copies). The second is a worse problem in my opinion. The > current rules are not to cross post. If you are not happy with them you > should start a thread on changing them.
there was a debate on the issue, but there was never a clear edict on it. so dont quote the situation as if there was. -mike

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies