| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
James Laslavic <squarebottle-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@××××××××××××.org>: |
| 4 |
> Was anybody else a bit disappointed to see that when the issue came |
| 5 |
> up in the new GMN, it only linked to the posts of developers who were |
| 6 |
> against the proposal? There was no attempt made at all to represent |
| 7 |
> the other side. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
As I wrote the Planet round-up, I will do the statement: I just |
| 10 |
collected reactions of developers, it is only about Planet Gentoo. |
| 11 |
Exactly one opinion is left out, because there was nothing substantial |
| 12 |
in it, and that was the one of Fernando Pereda |
| 13 |
<URL:http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/ferdy/2008/01/15/on_tool_boxes>, |
| 14 |
which was not positive either. |
| 15 |
If you point me to blog posts on Planet Gentoo that are in favour of |
| 16 |
the offer, I gladly write a correction for the next issue. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Whether or not this incontrovertible lapse in journalistic integrity |
| 19 |
> was intentional, it's still quite upsetting to me. Part of what's |
| 20 |
> been making so many people in the community upset has been the way |
| 21 |
> that the people on the inside haven't really been communicating with |
| 22 |
> them, and while I'm happy to see the return of a general newsletter |
| 23 |
> to begin to fix all that, this kind of one-sided reporting isn't |
| 24 |
> exactly what I was hoping for, to say the least. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The intention was NOT to write a balanced summary, but to sum-up |
| 27 |
reactions, nothing more, nothing left. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
V-Li |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project |
| 33 |
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/> |
Archives