Hi *, On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 11:25:14PM -0500, Scott Carr wrote: > > FAQ about GetStorage: No Content in the wrong subsection: > http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=46728
I don't see any problem with this one. First grsingleton may not got the point, but this can happen to everyone, then he forgot about the issue. Again this can happen to everyone. mackmoon took over the issue and handled it. What is the problem? Note that the issue was not assigned directly to grsingleton, but to [EMAIL PROTECTED], so everyone could have jumped in and handled it before that. The PLs don't need to do everything and don't need to handle the issues all alone. > Create an FAQ for PuTTY installation: > http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=43188 Again: What's the problem with this one? mackmoon filed the issue and let it rest, did not ask again for inclusion on the site Again it boils down to: Why do you expect the PL to handle all the issues? Now that grsingleton added the faq, how he did is not OK. Why do you expect a FAQ-Item in a section that is not linked? Then mackmoon refers to a post to the mailing-list where noone responded. When nobody responds, you have to ask again. > change faq page templates to one universal format: > http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=37258 And I don't have *any* clue what is wrong with that issue. mackmoon filed it, worked on it so grsingleton assigned it to her. To me it looks like grsingleton assisted by adapting the files in CVS. Finally the task was completed. So what the heck is wrong with this issue? > Broken Links in the Documentation Project: > http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=38552 Again mackmoon offered to work on it and she did. Again it looks like grsingleton offered help and responded quickly to her question. I cannot tell what is wrong with this issue. > links to set up guides point to older index page: > http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=39287 Huh? Again I don't understand. grsingleton made a mistake by rearranging the file-structure in CVS not realizing its impact. It was a mistake that could have been avoided, sure. But it happened and as I read the issue the rearrangement was big and it was decided that it is not worth the effort of going back to the old structure. The issue was handled within one week, shortly before christmas. And I don't understand the last comment. Reassigning the issue to someone doesn't mean to blame someone. Furthermore: the issue never was assigned to mackmoon, so I don't understand her comment "I found this one particularly embarrassing because actions were performed that I would never have done, and my name was assigned." at all. And I don't see what went wrong with this issue. The bottom line: >From the reference given (and from the initial post), I absolutely don't understand why Diane things that she is being sabotaged or similar. ciao Christian -- NP: Limp Bizkit - Hold On --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
