1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
Aren't there more important things to discuss here? Do you guys really |
7 |
have to bicker about this shit on the list? |
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
brant williams |
11 |
FCAA CDCA 20BC 3925 D634 F5C4 7420 6784 4DEB 6002 |
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
16 |
|
17 |
> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:28:48 -0500 |
18 |
> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> |
19 |
> To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o |
20 |
> Cc: Square Bottle <squarebottle@×××××.com> |
21 |
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Daniel Robbins Controversy Unfairly Reported in |
22 |
> GMN |
23 |
> |
24 |
> On Monday 21 January 2008, Square Bottle wrote: |
25 |
>> On Jan 20, 2008 8:56 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
26 |
>>> a few things: |
27 |
>>> - fix your top posting (in other words, stop doing it) |
28 |
>> |
29 |
>> It was an entirely new topic actually. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> that is no excuse for top posting |
32 |
> |
33 |
>>> - dont hijack existing threads |
34 |
>> |
35 |
>> Again, it was an entirely new topic. You surely noticed that it had a |
36 |
>> brand new subject and everything. I accidentally left a different |
37 |
>> quote at the bottom because I used a different email to quickly set it |
38 |
>> up to send to the list, but this should have been the very last thing |
39 |
>> for you to see anyway. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> and ? you've supported my point: you knowingly hijacked an existing thread. |
42 |
> you dont click an existing thread, hit reply all, change subject and delete |
43 |
> the body as that will not change the reply headers. your e-mail client was |
44 |
> intelligent and kept all of the relevant headers. to start a new thread, you |
45 |
> write a new e-mail, you dont reply to any other. |
46 |
> |
47 |
>>> no attempt was made to summarize anything at all. the article merely |
48 |
>>> linked to all existing posts made by Gentoo developers. |
49 |
>> |
50 |
>> They chose to use some opinion posts from developers to summarize the |
51 |
>> debate, but only ended up giving one side of the story. I don't really |
52 |
>> know how you can say there was no attempt to summarize it, because |
53 |
>> clearly something was meant to be reported, or else it would not have |
54 |
>> made it into GMN which is itself supposed to summarize what's going on |
55 |
>> in the big world of Gentoo. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> listing reactions is not a summary, it's a listing of reactions. |
58 |
> |
59 |
>>> if no Gentoo developer made |
60 |
>>> a post that supported Daniel's proposal, then it isnt exactly possible to |
61 |
>>> link to it now is it ? |
62 |
>> |
63 |
>> Then the editor probably should have reconsidered how to deliver the |
64 |
>> information. Also, I sort of doubt that there aren't any gentoo |
65 |
>> developers at all on the other side. In any case, like I originally |
66 |
>> said, it's entirely possibly that it was just an unintentional |
67 |
>> mistake. But it still happened. |
68 |
> |
69 |
> where's the threads ? list a single Gentoo developer that was left out and |
70 |
> it'll get added. you're making something out of nothing. |
71 |
> |
72 |
>>> at any rate, the general opinion was reflected in the |
73 |
>>> aforementioned blog posts. |
74 |
>> |
75 |
>> Actually, no, the general opinion not only wasn't reflected, but it |
76 |
>> wasn't even talked about, which is a big part of why I was upset. The |
77 |
>> general opinion is that Daniel coming back would be a good thing, as |
78 |
>> evidenced by the overwhelming majority of people that voted in favor |
79 |
>> of him coming back. Perhaps among developers the percentage is |
80 |
>> different (it sure seems like the developers have the opposite opinion |
81 |
>> of the community at large), but we don't know for sure exactly how it |
82 |
>> breaks down. The fact of the matter is that there are two sides, and |
83 |
>> one side has a very clear majority of support from the general |
84 |
>> community, and this side was not at all represented. If you are going |
85 |
>> to post opinion pieces from one side, you must post opinion pieces |
86 |
>> from the other side. Part of being a reporter is going out and getting |
87 |
>> quotes to represent all sides when trying to tell the news. |
88 |
> |
89 |
> it's a list of all Gentoo developers and it reflects the general developer |
90 |
> opinion. no other things were listed. implying this was intentional or had |
91 |
> some agenda is ridiculous. if you'd like to see more information in the GWM, |
92 |
> you should have e-mailed the GWM feedback list exactly like the newsletter |
93 |
> said to. it's pretty simple: |
94 |
> |
95 |
> To: gmn-feedback@g.o |
96 |
> Subject: About "Reaction on ...." |
97 |
> Body: |
98 |
> Hi! Could you include some links to the forums/mailing lists where the offer |
99 |
> was discussed ? Here's some example links: |
100 |
> http://........../ |
101 |
> http://........../ |
102 |
> |
103 |
> complaining on the -nfp list is not the place for it |
104 |
> |
105 |
>>> taking a yes/no poll is garbage as the options |
106 |
>>> are garbage. you cant approach the issue that way. |
107 |
>> |
108 |
>> No, but it's loads better than leaving the other side out completely |
109 |
>> at least. The poll at least showed the feelings of the general |
110 |
>> community, and proved that there were two sides. I think that the poll |
111 |
>> would be good if it was used in a supplementary manner to other |
112 |
>> information, but I agree that it should not be used by itself. But I |
113 |
>> would not call it complete garbage at all. It says quite a bit about a |
114 |
>> lot of things, and I'd be worried if it was completely ignored. |
115 |
> |
116 |
> frankly, i dont think a yes/no poll on the topic is relevant at all. users |
117 |
> may want to see a bunch of different things changed, but saying "we want |
118 |
> drobbins!" is meaningless as it does not represent any of the underlying |
119 |
> desires. all they're really voting for is "we'd like things |
120 |
> different/better". great, we already knew that. |
121 |
> -mike |
122 |
> |
123 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
124 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) |
125 |
|
126 |
iD8DBQFHlJADdCBnhE3rYAIRCN0pAKCVTvMfh0v4z0crzOuKF4aZig9+GgCeJMHq |
127 |
Q1AZmt78gzek2q9X8rtDK38= |
128 |
=Gjns |
129 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
130 |
-- |
131 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |