| 1 |
Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> This list is for technical discussions only. |
| 4 |
I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not regaled |
| 5 |
with countless emails about "technical issues" that were solved 3 years |
| 6 |
ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Also, public mailing-lists |
| 9 |
> are not for discussing your personal issues. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a |
| 12 |
Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get picked |
| 15 |
up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Or like, y'know, put your house in order/ keep that crap outta the archives. |
| 18 |
I don't have any more to say on it, but feel free to keep the flamefest |
| 19 |
going amongst yourselves. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're the |
| 22 |
person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision, which |
| 23 |
they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the points about |
| 24 |
process and try to make out this is my "personal" issue and not an issue of |
| 25 |
borked process. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
<Data> Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most |
| 28 |
intriguing. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
As stated, summarise correctly, and even better, follow a more professional |
| 31 |
process, and this sub-topic would never have been raised. As it is, this is |
| 32 |
about the level of debate I expected; blame the messenger, and avoid our own |
| 33 |
problems. I am glad there's an election on. |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |
Archives