1 |
On 06/18/10 05:43, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
2 |
>> Hmm - thats interesting, I subconsciously read the two questions into |
3 |
>> the one posted. I accept you point. Its something I am likely to |
4 |
>> write myself without thinking about it too much too. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Oh, this is a good one. Without introducing the problem, it is being |
7 |
> assured that devrel has a problem because (some?) Gentoo users have a |
8 |
> problem. So I ask very straightforwardly when this was pointed out to |
9 |
> devrel, because I don't see the information being introduced to the |
10 |
> wider public that has led to this public e-mail accusing devrel of not |
11 |
> doing their job. Excuse me please, but how did I not turn out to ask |
12 |
> the right question about the information that wasn't exposed on a |
13 |
> public mailing list? And if I did put a vitriolic spin on it, then |
14 |
|
15 |
Jeroen, I'm not sure if I understood all of this ^^^. |
16 |
Is there anything I can still turn for the better? |
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
> how |
20 |
> would you sanctify your actions that bypassed normal procedure without |
21 |
> actually at least summarising how that procedure ran to a dead end? |
22 |
|
23 |
My latest thread of communication with them ended in X treating me like |
24 |
a child and me ending the discussion due to that. |
25 |
|
26 |
Best, |
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
Sebastian |