| 1 |
Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 03:14 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400 |
| 4 |
>> Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it |
| 7 |
>>> and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> So this is effectively an admission that infra intends to use its |
| 11 |
>> position of trust to unilaterally enforce its members' will upon the |
| 12 |
>> developers as a whole. I shall make a note not to disagree with any of |
| 13 |
>> you in the future. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> don't be a troll man. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I would agree with you that this was a troll, except that I happen to |
| 18 |
have seen a previous revision of your policy doc a day or two ago, which |
| 19 |
was titled "fscking behave" if I recall. Unfortunately, I didn't save a |
| 20 |
copy (I really wish I would have), but it appears that the doc evolved |
| 21 |
from "infra will suspend unilaterally as they see fit, and there is |
| 22 |
nothing devrel can even do about it" to its current form. I must say |
| 23 |
that I find the idea that you guys have been thinking along these lines |
| 24 |
at all to be somewhat disturbing. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-Steve |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives