Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Dale <dalek@××××××××××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:34:41
Message-Id: 46069454.5070700@exceedtech.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract by Ciaran McCreesh
1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2 > On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400
3 > Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 >> On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
6 >>
7 >>> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
8 >>>
9 >>>> i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the
10 >>>> wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and
11 >>>> people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking
12 >>>> about an issue that doesnt exist
13 >>>>
14 >>> Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address
15 >>> would be something like this:
16 >>>
17 >> blow your conspiracy theories somewhere else
18 >>
19 >
20 > Hm? Like I said, it was a hypothetical situation. I'm not suggesting
21 > that anything like that has ever happened, merely that Christel's idea
22 > of protecting Gentoo from that kind of thing in the future isn't a bad
23 > thing...
24 >
25 >
26
27 As a lowly user, I agree. Gentoo should not put all its eggs in one basket.
28
29 Dale
30
31 :-) :-) :-)
32
33 --
34 www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o>