On Friday, April 03, "Lennart Borgman" <lennart.borg...@gmail.com> wrote: >David, you are in charge of h-e-w, did we discuss >this before? I have forgotten.
Yes, but in general terms. I think you added the comment about trying the unpatched version, if possible, after our previous exchange on the subject. (BTW - Myself and Rob Davenport are registered as administrators for the list. We do moderate, primarily to get rid of spam. Sometimes, as in this case, I do try to steer an unsubscribed poster to a more appropriate forum. However, I do not regard either Rob or myself as being "in charge". In the absence of guidance from gnu.org, I try to distill some sort of consensus about policies for what is appropriate on the list.) >Since h-e-w is a low traffic list and those who use >the patched version might be interested in this list >anyway I have addressed the bug reports to this >list. There are also very few bug reports that are >specific to the patched version. The above two sentences seem somewhat contradictory to me. If reports for the patched version are indeed rare, then having the h-e-w list be the default destination for bug reports from the patched version would seem counterproductive. In the case at hand, I had no idea whether MONKEY was running the patched version or not. The bug he reported, though vague, sounded to me more like it was probably systemic and not Windows-specific; so I figured the regular bug list would be better. However, I would not have thought that the pretest bug list would be appropriate. Is it really? I certainly did not expect that MONKEY would take offense at my suggestions, which were hardly "pejorative". I don't think MONKEY really knows what that word means either, but it is clear that he regards himself as having been affronted by both my response to him and by Chong's legitimate request as well. I think he was being way too sensitive; and, if he continues in such a vein, I will ban him from the list. We don't need such unjustified dissent here. Regards, David V.
