| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:30:20PM -0400, Olivier Fisette wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> You now suggest going back (in some ways) to how things were done |
| 4 |
> before, even though devrel was blamed for the way the last |
| 5 |
> incident was handled, and even though the separation of devrel |
| 6 |
> in two groups was suggested to help avoiding abuse and lack of |
| 7 |
> transparency. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
There's never been any abuse and transparency is irrelevant to |
| 10 |
separating the two. Unfortunately when certain individual(s) can't get |
| 11 |
away with flat out insulting other individuals it somehow turns into |
| 12 |
"devrel is abusive." Sorry, I don't buy it. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
When pressed for a depthful example of an incident of devrel being |
| 15 |
"abusive" nobody's come up with anything yet and frankly it sucks that |
| 16 |
devrel took the Ciaran vs. devrel popularity contest to heart enough |
| 17 |
to totally ruin devrel as an effective problem resolution body. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 21 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list |
Archives