| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> I do believe I addressed all your nonsense before you even posted it. |
| 3 |
> Now please don't do it again. I'm going to be ignoring anything further |
| 4 |
> along those lines. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
No you just focussed on the aside at the end, understandably (while avoiding |
| 7 |
the point that, as ever, you expect to use the Gentoo ebuild tree.) The |
| 8 |
points I was making: |
| 9 |
>> A Council that simultaneously says |
| 10 |
>> "yes, we were behind musikc's actions" and "no, it was solely musikc's |
| 11 |
>> decision"? That's a lot like the old days. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> Saying it's someone's call and that you support them in making that |
| 14 |
> decision strikes me as the chain-of-command in operation. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Would you care to comment on that? It is perfectly possible to endorse a |
| 17 |
decision made by someone else, while having played no part in the |
| 18 |
decision-making process. It's called delegation. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> And I note you're not saying that you think the Council have been slacking |
| 21 |
> in the way you outlined in your earlier post as the motivation for this |
| 22 |
> policy. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Which is still the case: you're not saying the current Council are slackers. |
| 25 |
If you feel they are, please explain how, since they seem to have kept up |
| 26 |
with far more meetings than you outlined in your earlier post as being the |
| 27 |
bad old days. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Nor was this meeting announced anywhere apart from at the tail end of |
| 30 |
another long meeting, and in the summary of said, which understandably |
| 31 |
attendees don't usually read. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I for one would much rather see the Council get on with discussing the |
| 34 |
devrel issue, than wasting a large amount of scarce time and manpower on an |
| 35 |
election. They're not slacking, they messed up: big deal; life's messy |
| 36 |
sometimes. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives