Shawn Walker wrote: > On Jan 23, 2008 3:29 PM, Eric Boutilier <Eric.Boutilier at sun.com> wrote: >> Shawn Walker wrote: >> > On Jan 23, 2008 1:29 PM, Eric Boutilier <Eric.Boutilier at sun.com> wrote: >> >> Shawn, >> >> >> >> Sidenote: In your last post, you majorly conflated other peoples' >> >> concerns with my concerns. Maybe something I said prompted that... >> >> but whatever. The important thing is, you wrote: >> > >> > I was addressing concerns in the email that you had posted that was >> > from you and Peter. >> > >> > I wasn't trying to address any issues outside of the email you posted. >> >> One of us is mixed up then. Let's take that offline though. >> More below... >> >> > >> > >> >> I'd say that's extremely promising news, and potentially extremely >> >> /excellent/ news if we hear from them directly. >> > >> > I want to be clear that neither Erast's or Moinak's assent to be a >> > contributor to the group is strictly an indication of agreement and >> > willingness to be part of the proposed Community Group. >> > >> >> Oh. :-( >> >> -1 from me to the proposal. (On the same grounds that I expressed in >> the last paragraph of the June e-mail that I copied here earlier today.) > > Sorry I completely botched that and just realised it now. > > The difference one word makes: > > "I want to be clear that Erast's *AND* Moinak's assent to be a > contributor to the group is strictly an indication of agreement and > willingness to be part of the proposed Community Group." >
Nice! So that covers the three major (IMO) distros. (Moinak of course, being a top rep simultaneously for BeleniX /and/ Indiana). So a cautious +1 to the proposal from me. What's still missing in my opinion, is public commentary from Erast and Moinak, and a more balanced representation of the 3 major distros (which simply means, at least one other Indiana principal, in addition to Moinak, accepting.) Eric
