On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: > The issue as I see it is that you presented the idea on this list for > discussion but didn't care to follow that discussion until a conclusion was > reached.
It seemed discussion had petered out. > Some TUs objected to the bot and I think you should have taken those > objections into consideration (e.g. that icons should be tolerated, etc). In the days before the launch there were seven replies. Of these, three were positive and four were neutral. Not one negative comment or objection. (From just TUs: 1 positive, 2 neutral, 0 negative.) All advice given in the neutral comments was applied. Tone of the message was greatly lightened in the case of icons. Silly workarounds like base64 were removed. No one commented on the number or choice of packages in the lists attached to the original post. I will look for stronger consensus in the future. > The length of my replies might be taken to mean that this is a bigger issue I'm just glad you are taking the time to write them. -Kyle http://kmkeen.com
