On 1/20/08, Steve Long <slong@...> wrote:
> Daniel Butzu wrote:
> > On 1/19/08, Steve Long <slong@...> wrote:
> >> For the record: I'd still like drobbins involved, but I don't think his
> >> terms were at all reasonable, and the way he went about it was
> >> reprehensible imo. It was designed to cause the furore it did, and only
> >> makes me give credence to the argument that much of the negative press on
> >> distrowatch has come from an associate of his. It was a totally political
> >> move, and not at all motivated by concern for Gentoo afaic. If he cared
> >> that much, he'd have approached Mr Goodyear privately or on the nfp list
> >> if he wanted to be "open". Not put everyone through all this stress.
> > Maybe. However, since it caused the furore it did it seems that a lot
> > of users were unsatisfied.
> >> Users used to feel just as excluded when drobbins was in charge
> There appears to be some myth going round that everything was sweetness and
> light back in those days; it's not true, and further the distro was an
> absolute pig to maintain:
> <long time user> "I used Gentoo when it was version 0.7, which was omg
> broken. Packages were added to portage and this would be stable, that would
> not compile at all. Then you had to re-sync to compile it, so in a day, you
> would need to re-sync portage 3 or 4 times to get everything to compile. :P
> ..Even still back in the 1.4 days, people really had no idea what to do."
> > You can't stir up something when there is nothing to stir up.
> Actually I think this whole drama shows that you can, or at least you can
> draw attention to one thing (lack of paperwork) and pretend it means
> something else (Gentoo is dying! Again!) People like drama.
> > So maybe we should focus more on our problems today, since we were unable
> > of doing it yesterday.
> Er yeah, maybe you'd like to discuss those then? That was what the rest of
> my mail was about.
> >> I've openly stated that I think user involvement and conduct on the dev
> >> m-l are the biggest problems I see.
> As in, how do we constructively change those? Or do you believe that can
> only be done by drobbins taking exclusive ownership of everyone's code?
> email@example.com mailing list
I think there is something wrong with your knode since it is putting
into my mouth some words that I didn't say. When writing a mixed reply
is not enough to mention the name of only one initial sender.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list