On Tuesday 09 March 2010 04:41:07 pm Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:54:16 -0500, Bill wrote:
20:59:11 dgilmore Kevin_Kofler: i dont see Michael Schwendt as
infulencial. he choose to largely abstain from fedora years ago
Huh? Now, what exactly is your problem with me?
What
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:55:18 -0600, Dennis wrote:
I was referring to things like
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2007-June/msg00120.html
Where rather than work with fedora as you previously had you chose to be less
involved. which is perfectly fine and ok.
Aha.
On 03/10/2010 06:55 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
meeting.
Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
Follow basic IRC etiquette for meetings
Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
meeting.
Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
Seth, respect would be a good starting point.
20:45:30 cwickert I know there
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 06:47:00AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
We shouldn't be held hostage to various threats. We shouldn't be afraid to
try something because a vocal few are ranting against it.
I could, of course, be very wrong. However threatening to leave the project
if various things
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 06:47:00AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:07:39AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
meeting.
Jonathan, Do you
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:47:00 -0500, Josh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:07:39AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
meeting.
Jonathan, Do you have any
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Seth, respect would be a good starting point.
20:45:30 cwickert I know there are people that will leave Fedora if
we decide a policy that forbids major updates. both users and
contributors
20:45:42 skvidal cwickert: people threatening to leave
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I can agree with that last sentence in parts. Please don't forget the
order of incidents, however. First the early-warning system with hundreds
of messages and multiple threads, which made several packagers think do
they want to ruin the
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:38:09PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
20:45:42 skvidal cwickert: people threatening to leave should leave
20:45:48 skvidal orphan your packages and go
20:45:57 skvidal I'll be glad to clean up that mess
While the phrasing may or may not be over the top, I read
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:55:08 -0500 (EST), Seth wrote:
Michael,
Do you really think you're attitude has been respectful and helpful
throughout all the time. Do you consider history at all?
It seems to be enough that you do. Whatever you may remember
correctly, I don't know what it is. You
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 07:50:25AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
Do you like it when someone, who isn't getting their way threatens to take
their ball and go home?
There is a big difference between people threatening to take their ball
home if something happens that they don't like, and people
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:59:56 +, Ewan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 07:50:25AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
Do you like it when someone, who isn't getting their way threatens to take
their ball and go home?
There is a big difference between people threatening to take their ball
home
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 15:51 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
It surprised me to see FESCo fight like that in a meeting. Some members
are beside themselves in rage. Steering is hard, let's go shopping.
Whether someone is 'besides themselves in rage' is really hard to infer
from an irc log. I
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers.
No volunteer package maintainer is in general forced to create updates
and I am very sure that the
On Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 16:22, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers.
No volunteer package maintainer is
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:22:37AM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers.
No volunteer package maintainer
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:38:53PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 16:22, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
why package maintainer
On Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 17:34, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:38:53PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
[...]
Agreed. However, we should ask ourselves if it's better to have a package
in our distribution even if it doesn't fit ideally with the rest or
There are nearly no facts, so everyone is just
guessing and many people are just ignoring objections.
That is true, indeed.
But do we really need detailed statistics to make a good decision?
All of us have an experience with Fedora over the last years. And I
*guess* ( :-) ) most or even
On 03/10/2010 02:16 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/10/2010 06:55 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
meeting.
Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
Follow basic IRC etiquette for meetings
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/10/2010 02:16 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/10/2010 06:55 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
meeting.
Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:54:16 -0500, Bill wrote:
20:59:11 dgilmore Kevin_Kofler: i dont see Michael Schwendt as infulencial.
he choose to largely abstain from fedora years ago
Huh? Now, what exactly is your problem with me?
What the heck are you referring to?
--
devel mailing list
On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
===
Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
===
Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full logs are
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jonathan Underwood
jonathan.underw...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
===
Meeting started by nirik at
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 00:05 +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
===
Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full
27 matches
Mail list logo
