On 06/18/10 05:43, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> Hmm - thats interesting, I subconsciously read the two questions into 
>> the one posted. I accept you point. Its something I am likely to
>> write myself without thinking about it too much too.   
> 
> Oh, this is a good one. Without introducing the problem, it is being
> assured that devrel has a problem because (some?) Gentoo users have a
> problem. So I ask very straightforwardly when this was pointed out to
> devrel, because I don't see the information being introduced to the
> wider public that has led to this public e-mail accusing devrel of not
> doing their job. Excuse me please, but how did I not turn out to ask
> the right question about the information that wasn't exposed on a
> public mailing list? And if I did put a vitriolic spin on it, then

Jeroen, I'm not sure if I understood all of this ^^^.
Is there anything I can still turn for the better?


> how
> would you sanctify your actions that bypassed normal procedure without
> actually at least summarising how that procedure ran to a dead end?

My latest thread of communication with them ended in X treating me like
a child and me ending the discussion due to that.

Best,



Sebastian