Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ned Ludd]

On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 22:37 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 03:14 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> >> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400
> >> Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
> >>> and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over.
> >
> >
> >> So this is effectively an admission that infra intends to use its
> >> position of trust to unilaterally enforce its members' will upon the
> >> developers as a whole. I shall make a note not to disagree with any of
> >> you in the future.
> >
> > don't be a troll man.
>
> I would agree with you that this was a troll, except that I happen to
> have seen a previous revision of your policy doc a day or two ago, which
> was titled "fscking behave" if I recall.  Unfortunately, I didn't save a
> copy (I really wish I would have), but it appears that the doc evolved
> from "infra will suspend unilaterally as they see fit, and there is
> nothing devrel can even do about it" to its current form.  I must say
> that I find the idea that you guys have been thinking along these lines
> at all to be somewhat disturbing.

Ok so your saying you saw the doc before now. Ok. So if you saw that 
then chances are you also saw me asking for feedback. Well. I'm open to
feedback. However right now it appears your trying to sway perception of
the readers by painting a picture of some evil sinister plots on in an
attempt to discredit people. If such is the case (and it sure feels like
it) then I'm not really interested in talking or working with you.

Next time try giving me an .xml patch or sending me a direct email if
you want me to update a document in "MY!" dev space or heh post your own
drafts to your own devspace.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list