| 1 |
>>| I suggest that in the future, all developers who are directly quoted |
| 2 |
>>| in the GWN are contacted prior to posting the quotes. I realize that |
| 3 |
>>| this will put a bit more work load on the GWN authors, but it should |
| 4 |
>>| be as simple as sending a mail with the relevant section quoted for |
| 5 |
>>| the developer to accept. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>Also, why not bring back the "post to -core" requirement? Make it a |
| 8 |
>>rule that it can't be labelled as an official Gentoo publication unless |
| 9 |
>>it gets some review... |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Why not bring back the "the GWN is a community thing and YOU can also contribute!!!" mentality? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> That Ulrich and I have made some suboptimal decisions in the past is a |
| 14 |
> fact, but why aren't there more contributors to the GWN so that we two |
| 15 |
> aren't single points of failure? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Errrr...since when did the number of people working on the GWN have |
| 19 |
anything to do with horribly misquoting somebody's blog? Are you |
| 20 |
suggesting there is a critical number of folks working on the GWN which |
| 21 |
will automagically prevent this sort of thing from happening? Sorry, I |
| 22 |
don't buy that. The issue here is that Brix was never contacted to |
| 23 |
review the GWN content prior to having his blog publically twisted into |
| 24 |
inaccurate bullshit. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-Steve |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives