Denis Dupeyron wrote: > This list is for technical discussions only. I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not regaled with countless emails about "technical issues" that were solved 3 years ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree.
> Also, public mailing-lists > are not for discussing your personal issues. > It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims. You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get picked up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives. Or like, y'know, put your house in order/ keep that crap outta the archives. I don't have any more to say on it, but feel free to keep the flamefest going amongst yourselves. Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're the person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision, which they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the points about process and try to make out this is my "personal" issue and not an issue of borked process. <Data> Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing. As stated, summarise correctly, and even better, follow a more professional process, and this sub-topic would never have been raised. As it is, this is about the level of debate I expected; blame the messenger, and avoid our own problems. I am glad there's an election on. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
