| 1 |
Daniel Butzu wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I think there is something wrong with your knode since it is putting |
| 4 |
> into my mouth some words that I didn't say. When writing a mixed reply |
| 5 |
> is not enough to mention the name of only one initial sender. |
| 6 |
Oh I'm sorry I thought you'd read the previous message. Here this should |
| 7 |
make it clearer: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
>>> > On 1/19/08, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> |
| 10 |
>> Daniel Butzu wrote: |
| 11 |
>> > On 1/19/08, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 12 |
>> > |
| 13 |
>> >> For the record: I'd still like drobbins involved, but I don't think |
| 14 |
>> >> his terms were at all reasonable, and the way he went about it was |
| 15 |
>> >> reprehensible imo. It was designed to cause the furore it did, and |
| 16 |
>> >> only makes me give credence to the argument that much of the negative |
| 17 |
>> >> press on distrowatch has come from an associate of his. It was a |
| 18 |
>> >> totally political move, and not at all motivated by concern for Gentoo |
| 19 |
>> >> afaic. If he cared that much, he'd have approached Mr Goodyear |
| 20 |
>> >> privately or on the nfp list if he wanted to be "open". Not put |
| 21 |
>> >> everyone through all this stress. |
| 22 |
>> >> |
| 23 |
>> > Maybe. However, since it caused the furore it did it seems that a lot |
| 24 |
>> > of users were unsatisfied. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
Since you ignored what "the rest of my mail was about", I included some of |
| 27 |
it, and expanded on it to explain what I meant. Sorry for your confusion. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
In this mail anything starting >> or '>> >>' is mine. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
>> > On 1/19/08, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>>> |
| 32 |
>> > Users used to feel just as excluded when drobbins was in charge |
| 33 |
>> There appears to be some myth going round that everything was sweetness |
| 34 |
>> and light back in those days; it's not true, and further the distro was |
| 35 |
>> an absolute pig to maintain: |
| 36 |
>> <long time user> "I used Gentoo when it was version 0.7, which was omg |
| 37 |
>> broken. Packages were added to portage and this would be stable, that |
| 38 |
>> would not compile at all. Then you had to re-sync to compile it, so in a |
| 39 |
>> day, you would need to re-sync portage 3 or 4 times to get everything to |
| 40 |
>> compile. :P ..Even still back in the 1.4 days, people really had no idea |
| 41 |
>> what to do." |
| 42 |
>> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
>> Daniel Butzu wrote: |
| 45 |
>> > You can't stir up something when there is nothing to stir up. |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
>> Actually I think this whole drama shows that you can, or at least you can |
| 48 |
>> draw attention to one thing (lack of paperwork) and pretend it means |
| 49 |
>> something else (Gentoo is dying! Again!) People like drama. |
| 50 |
>> |
| 51 |
>> Daniel Butzu wrote: |
| 52 |
>> > So maybe we should focus more on our problems today, since we were |
| 53 |
>> > unable of doing it yesterday. |
| 54 |
>> |
| 55 |
>> Er yeah, maybe you'd like to discuss those then? That was what the rest |
| 56 |
>> of my mail was about. |
| 57 |
>> |
| 58 |
As in: |
| 59 |
>> > On 1/19/08, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> |
| 60 |
>> >> I've openly stated that I think user involvement and conduct on the |
| 61 |
>> >> dev m-l are the biggest problems I see. |
| 62 |
>> |
| 63 |
>> As in, how do we constructively change those? Or do you believe that can |
| 64 |
>> only be done by drobbins taking exclusive ownership of everyone's code? |
| 65 |
>> |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
HTH, |
| 68 |
steveL: looking forward to your points. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
-- |
| 72 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives