On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:24:24AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:17:50AM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 08:19:09AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > > > All arguments were made, extensively, before. > > > > > > Except maybe for one: > > > > > > The claimed reason for reinstating daniels now is that apparently nobody > > > else wants to take on an admin role at fd.o. I would like to know which > > > known dependable community members were approached for such roles before > > > this decision here was taken. > > > > No-one has claimed that, except for you. > > > > What Tollef said is that as I'd harmed (the perception of) fd.o, rather > > than just quitting and getting to walk away, I should instead help out > > with fd.o admin tasks as penance: his view was that after causing some > > damage, I should help improve things. > > Was it considered, at any point in this process, to actually get more > (actually trusted) people in to do fd.o administration? > > I doubt it, and your answer seems to confirm it.
I don't know. I'm just correcting your 'claimed reason' which was actually a fabrication based on what you think and/or would like people to believe. If you actually wanted to find out, you could go ask someone, instead of just posting random crap attributed to others to the list, in the hope that Phoronix will run with it.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
