| 1 |
Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:40:59AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This is |
| 5 |
>>how I personally think this should be handled in future. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the job quite so |
| 10 |
> often & so hard before handling this particular incident. I don't think |
| 11 |
> it's so unreasonable to have backup plans for preserving Gentoo when |
| 12 |
> devrel cannot respond in a timely manner |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Come on, this is FUD. Devrel had had a plenty of time to make an action |
| 15 |
*and* to talk to infra in the recent case. They had decided *not* to do |
| 16 |
that - which means that they didn't consider it apropriate, IMHO. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Or am I really missing something obvious? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Cheers, |
| 21 |
-jkt |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth |
Archives