Pardon me if you receive this message two times, I'm not sure it went to the
ml the first time:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:49:12PM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 14:08 -0300, Mauricio Lima Pilla wrote:
Good luck for the remaining proctors, they will need as they
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Jun 05 2007, 05:00:28PM CDT]
As a member of the Council, I find it personally offensive that the
Proctors have taken this action on what wasn't even a problem thread.
I'm sick of this. I call for the immediate disbanding of the Proctors.
As much as I dislike
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:29:47 -0500
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(As an aside, I didn't realize that Roy's e-mail was supposed to
be a proctor directive.)
He changed the subject and signed on behalf of gentoo-proctors.
Is there a way to fix the current system, or should it be chucked
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:29:47 -0500
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(As an aside, I didn't realize that Roy's e-mail was supposed to
be a proctor directive.)
He changed the subject and signed on behalf of
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:44:49 -0500
Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or... perhaps when asked not to respond to a thread for 24 hours, you
could keep your fucking trap shut?
If I'm asked by someone with a good reason, sure. If I'm told to by
someone on a power trip with a history of
Am Mittwoch 06 Juni 2007 17:42 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
Is there a way to fix the current system, or should it be chucked
entirely, as has been suggested?
The problem is not so much the system as a small number of the
proctors.
I feel like _anyone_* who willingly acts against a
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:29:47AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Jun 05 2007, 05:00:28PM CDT]
As a member of the Council, I find it personally offensive that the
Proctors have taken this action on what wasn't even a problem thread.
I'm sick of this. I call for
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:44:49 -0500
Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or... perhaps when asked not to respond to a thread for 24 hours, you
could keep your fucking trap shut?
If I'm asked by someone with a good reason, sure. If I'm told to by
someone on a
Am Mittwoch 06 Juni 2007 17:53 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:44:49 -0500
Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or... perhaps when asked not to respond to a thread for 24 hours, you
could keep your fucking trap shut?
If I'm asked by someone with a good reason, sure.
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 18:08:30 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just stop claiming others are insane, abusive power-trippers just
because you did not abide by a rule and got your punishment for it.
I'm claiming it because plenty of other people agree. You *did* see the
response that the proctors got
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:29:47 -0500
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(As an aside, I didn't realize that Roy's e-mail was supposed to
be a proctor directive.)
He changed the subject and signed on behalf of gentoo-proctors.
Is there a way to fix the current
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just stop claiming others are insane, abusive power-trippers just
because you did not abide by a rule and got your punishment for it.
I'm claiming it because plenty of other people agree. You *did* see the
response that the proctors got from
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:33:29 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is not so much the system as a small number of the
proctors. Perhaps it should be restaffed with people who aren't so
used to wielding god-like powers on the forums, where anyone who
dares say anything that
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:33:29 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is not so much the system as a small number of the
proctors. Perhaps it should be restaffed with people who aren't so
used to wielding god-like powers on the forums, where anyone who
Mike Doty wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:29:47 -0500
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(As an aside, I didn't realize that Roy's e-mail was supposed to
be a proctor directive.)
He changed the subject and signed on behalf of gentoo-proctors.
Is there a way to fix
On Wednesday 06 June 2007 13:48:53 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
That wasn't what I said. What I said was that the forums staff have no
accountability, and that the proctors were suffering as a result of
containing too many of said forums staff.
That's bullshit. We are subject to the same rules as
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:29:47AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
So, how about using this incident as an opportunity for a calm
discussion about the mandate and role of the proctors? The proctors
clearly felt that they should shut down this thread _before_ things
got out of hand.
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Doty wrote:
Perhaps you should go take a long walk off a short pier.
[snip]
Oh, I'm so hurt. You think I'm a hypocrite. Man, what will I ever do?
Newsflash, I know I'm a hypocrite, which is a lot better than the
childish passive-aggressive
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
got out of hand. Perhaps the goal was laudable, but the methods were
not? (As an aside, I didn't realize that Roy's e-mail was supposed to
be a proctor directive.) Or are people really looking for the proctors
to get involved only when behavior is
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:44:49 -0500
Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or... perhaps when asked not to respond to a thread for 24 hours, you
could keep your fucking trap shut?
If I'm asked by someone with a good reason, sure. If I'm told to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josh Sled wrote:
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
got out of hand. Perhaps the goal was laudable, but the methods were
not? (As an aside, I didn't realize that Roy's e-mail was supposed to
be a proctor directive.) Or are people really
Josh Sled wrote:
I find it disappointing (maybe telling, if one is less charitable) that
the Proctors never censured the original poster for either the tone of the
message, nor the personal invective it contained, and still haven't. I'd
imagine clear violations of the CoC to result in at
drawn in flames.
drown, please excuse my spelling.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Dnia 06-06-2007, śro o godzinie 18:32 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
napisał(a):
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just stop claiming others are insane, abusive power-trippers just
because you did not abide by a rule and got your punishment for it.
I'm claiming it because
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anders Hellgren wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:44:49 -0500
Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or... perhaps when asked not to respond to a thread for 24 hours, you
could keep your fucking trap
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 14:08 -0300, Mauricio Lima Pilla wrote:
Good luck for the remaining proctors, they will need as they aparently can't
even expect any support from council members.
There's a *BIG* difference between support and blind support. Nobody
ever promised the proctors blind
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 13:14 -0500, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
Great job Chris, way to stick it to them.
Yes. It absolutely *is* a great job that I voiced my opinion in a
manner that I thought was most beneficial for Gentoo. Shame on me for
ever thinking about what might be best for Gentoo.
Dawid Węgliński wrote:
Dnia 06-06-2007, śro o godzinie 18:32 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
napisał(a):
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just stop claiming others are insane, abusive power-trippers just
because you did not abide by a rule and got your punishment for it.
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:13:25PM +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:44:23PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
Please step back, take a deep breath and avoid posting to this thread
for 24 hours.
Folks, while we're cutting some slack to the people replying
somewhere else in
On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 15:43 -0600, Jason Wever wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Wernfried Haas wrote:
So far we have temporarily suspended both ciaran's and geoman's account
from posting and encourage everyone to do as Roy initially suggested.
On 05/06/07, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a member of the Council, I find it personally offensive that the
Proctors have taken this action on what wasn't even a problem thread.
I'm sick of this. I call for the immediate disbanding of the Proctors.
As much as I dislike many of
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:08:27PM +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
Proctors: please let me know when my ban expires.
You're not even banned?
--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
http://forums.gentoo.org || http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/proctors/
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org || proctors
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Jason,
If you leave, the plants win.
That has just made my day.
--
Andrew Gaffney http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer Catalyst/Installer + x86 release coordinator
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 15:43 -0600, Jason Wever wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Wernfried Haas wrote:
So far we have temporarily suspended both ciaran's and geoman's account
from posting and encourage everyone to do as Roy initially suggested.
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 15:43:49 -0600 (MDT)
Jason Wever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..snip..]
But who are people going to accidentally hilight now?! :'(
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
35 matches
Mail list logo
