On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 08:09:04AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote:
> 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.
>
Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have had
their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous). Would you
please stop that?
> > 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.
The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the reason
given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly straightforward. There is
nothing biased(or anything deserving being called a 'lie') in that
summary(notice I used the language "for what he called" indicating that this is
not necessarily my view or the council's view of what occurred, only what reason
was given for the banning). As those who I talk to can attest to, I bend
over backwards to make sure all my summaries are professional and indicate what
the person means, not what others say about their intentionns etc.
I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your
remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time and
effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate.
> 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.
See above, especially the part saying "for what he called".
>
> 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.
See above.
> 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.
I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which is as
stated their turf. Any userrel issues are probably separate to this problem.
>
> As stated, summarise correctly, and even better, follow a more professional
> process, and this sub-topic would never have been raised.
See above.
> 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.
So am I, but your slandering of my platform is not appreciated at all.
--
-
Thomas Anderson
Gentoo Developer
/
Areas of responsibility:
AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council
-
pgphDvbKl3t5P.pgp
Description: PGP signature
