1 |
James Laslavic wrote: |
2 |
> Was anybody else a bit disappointed to see that when the issue came up |
3 |
> in the new GMN, it only linked to the posts of developers who were |
4 |
> against the proposal? There was no attempt made at all to represent the |
5 |
> other side. |
6 |
|
7 |
I'm a bit disappointed that you hijacked a thread and post something |
8 |
quite off topic to this mailing list. |
9 |
|
10 |
> There has yet to be any polling to indicate what percentage of |
11 |
> affiliated, official developers oppose the proposal. As far as the |
12 |
> general community goes, it's no secret that most people support Daniel's |
13 |
> proposal (the poll in the forums showed more than 90% support). |
14 |
|
15 |
Yet to be determined. |
16 |
|
17 |
> There wasn't even a hint that most people have declared their support |
18 |
> for Daniel's proposal. We heard plenty from one side, and we heard |
19 |
> nothing from people on the other side. |
20 |
|
21 |
Which side? |
22 |
|
23 |
> Whether or not this incontrovertible lapse in journalistic integrity was |
24 |
> intentional, it's still quite upsetting to me. Part of what's been |
25 |
> making so many people in the community upset has been the way that the |
26 |
> people on the inside haven't really been communicating with them, and |
27 |
> while I'm happy to see the return of a general newsletter to begin to |
28 |
> fix all that, this kind of one-sided reporting isn't exactly what I was |
29 |
> hoping for, to say the least. |
30 |
|
31 |
Thank you for reading our worthless ramblings... |
32 |
|
33 |
I'm quite upset since me and many other developers are available for |
34 |
inquiry ANYTIME and in fact we try to reply in the most gentle way to |
35 |
every inquiry. We are anything but distant if you spend really want to |
36 |
contact us. |
37 |
|
38 |
lu |
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
|
42 |
Luca Barbato |
43 |
Gentoo Council Member |
44 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
45 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
46 |
|
47 |
-- |
48 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |