1 |
Daniel Butzu wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> I think there is something wrong with your knode since it is putting |
4 |
> into my mouth some words that I didn't say. When writing a mixed reply |
5 |
> is not enough to mention the name of only one initial sender. |
6 |
Oh I'm sorry I thought you'd read the previous message. Here this should |
7 |
make it clearer: |
8 |
|
9 |
>>> > On 1/19/08, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> |
10 |
>> Daniel Butzu wrote: |
11 |
>> > On 1/19/08, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
12 |
>> > |
13 |
>> >> For the record: I'd still like drobbins involved, but I don't think |
14 |
>> >> his terms were at all reasonable, and the way he went about it was |
15 |
>> >> reprehensible imo. It was designed to cause the furore it did, and |
16 |
>> >> only makes me give credence to the argument that much of the negative |
17 |
>> >> press on distrowatch has come from an associate of his. It was a |
18 |
>> >> totally political move, and not at all motivated by concern for Gentoo |
19 |
>> >> afaic. If he cared that much, he'd have approached Mr Goodyear |
20 |
>> >> privately or on the nfp list if he wanted to be "open". Not put |
21 |
>> >> everyone through all this stress. |
22 |
>> >> |
23 |
>> > Maybe. However, since it caused the furore it did it seems that a lot |
24 |
>> > of users were unsatisfied. |
25 |
>> |
26 |
Since you ignored what "the rest of my mail was about", I included some of |
27 |
it, and expanded on it to explain what I meant. Sorry for your confusion. |
28 |
|
29 |
In this mail anything starting >> or '>> >>' is mine. |
30 |
|
31 |
>> > On 1/19/08, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>>> |
32 |
>> > Users used to feel just as excluded when drobbins was in charge |
33 |
>> There appears to be some myth going round that everything was sweetness |
34 |
>> and light back in those days; it's not true, and further the distro was |
35 |
>> an absolute pig to maintain: |
36 |
>> <long time user> "I used Gentoo when it was version 0.7, which was omg |
37 |
>> broken. Packages were added to portage and this would be stable, that |
38 |
>> would not compile at all. Then you had to re-sync to compile it, so in a |
39 |
>> day, you would need to re-sync portage 3 or 4 times to get everything to |
40 |
>> compile. :P ..Even still back in the 1.4 days, people really had no idea |
41 |
>> what to do." |
42 |
>> |
43 |
|
44 |
>> Daniel Butzu wrote: |
45 |
>> > You can't stir up something when there is nothing to stir up. |
46 |
>> |
47 |
>> Actually I think this whole drama shows that you can, or at least you can |
48 |
>> draw attention to one thing (lack of paperwork) and pretend it means |
49 |
>> something else (Gentoo is dying! Again!) People like drama. |
50 |
>> |
51 |
>> Daniel Butzu wrote: |
52 |
>> > So maybe we should focus more on our problems today, since we were |
53 |
>> > unable of doing it yesterday. |
54 |
>> |
55 |
>> Er yeah, maybe you'd like to discuss those then? That was what the rest |
56 |
>> of my mail was about. |
57 |
>> |
58 |
As in: |
59 |
>> > On 1/19/08, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> |
60 |
>> >> I've openly stated that I think user involvement and conduct on the |
61 |
>> >> dev m-l are the biggest problems I see. |
62 |
>> |
63 |
>> As in, how do we constructively change those? Or do you believe that can |
64 |
>> only be done by drobbins taking exclusive ownership of everyone's code? |
65 |
>> |
66 |
|
67 |
HTH, |
68 |
steveL: looking forward to your points. |
69 |
|
70 |
|
71 |
-- |
72 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |