1 |
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 08:09:04AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote: |
2 |
> Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > This list is for technical discussions only. |
5 |
> I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not regaled |
6 |
> with countless emails about "technical issues" that were solved 3 years |
7 |
> ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree. |
8 |
> |
9 |
|
10 |
Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have had |
11 |
their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous). Would you |
12 |
please stop that? |
13 |
|
14 |
> > Also, public mailing-lists |
15 |
> > are not for discussing your personal issues. |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a |
18 |
> Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims. |
19 |
|
20 |
The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the reason |
21 |
given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly straightforward. There is |
22 |
nothing biased(or anything deserving being called a 'lie') in that |
23 |
summary(notice I used the language "for what he called" indicating that this is |
24 |
not necessarily my view or the council's view of what occurred, only what reason |
25 |
was given for the banning). As those who I talk to can attest to, I bend |
26 |
over backwards to make sure all my summaries are professional and indicate what |
27 |
the person means, not what others say about their intentionns etc. |
28 |
|
29 |
I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your |
30 |
remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time and |
31 |
effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate. |
32 |
|
33 |
> You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get picked |
34 |
> up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives. |
35 |
|
36 |
See above, especially the part saying "for what he called". |
37 |
> |
38 |
> Or like, y'know, put your house in order/ keep that crap outta the archives. |
39 |
> I don't have any more to say on it, but feel free to keep the flamefest |
40 |
> going amongst yourselves. |
41 |
|
42 |
See above. |
43 |
|
44 |
> Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're the |
45 |
> person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision, which |
46 |
> they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the points about |
47 |
> process and try to make out this is my "personal" issue and not an issue of |
48 |
> borked process. |
49 |
|
50 |
I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which is as |
51 |
stated their turf. Any userrel issues are probably separate to this problem. |
52 |
|
53 |
> |
54 |
> As stated, summarise correctly, and even better, follow a more professional |
55 |
> process, and this sub-topic would never have been raised. |
56 |
|
57 |
See above. |
58 |
|
59 |
> As it is, this is |
60 |
> about the level of debate I expected; blame the messenger, and avoid our own |
61 |
> problems. I am glad there's an election on. |
62 |
|
63 |
So am I, but your slandering of my platform is not appreciated at all. |
64 |
|
65 |
-- |
66 |
--------- |
67 |
Thomas Anderson |
68 |
Gentoo Developer |
69 |
///////// |
70 |
Areas of responsibility: |
71 |
AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council |
72 |
--------- |