Jon Portnoy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:40:59AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: > >>This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This >>is >>how I personally think this should be handled in future. >> > > > Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the job quite so > often & so hard before handling this particular incident. I don't think > it's so unreasonable to have backup plans for preserving Gentoo when > devrel cannot respond in a timely manner
Come on, this is FUD. Devrel had had a plenty of time to make an action *and* to talk to infra in the recent case. They had decided *not* to do that - which means that they didn't consider it apropriate, IMHO. Or am I really missing something obvious? Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
