On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Oliver Grawert <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 04.08.2011, 10:26 -0400 schrieb Mackenzie Morgan: >> If there's an anti-Canonical bias, I still don't see it, > > and the discussion we have since yesterday doesnt strike you as possibly > being related to anti canonical bias ?
Nope. Just good ol' fashioned anger. If one of the Claires or Marianne were to apply for membership, they'd get it in a heartbeat. At this point, I don't know who is and isn't a Canonical employee when I see developers' names come up. There's too many Canonifolk to keep track. That list I made before? I was shocked at how many on there were Canonical employees. I expected half the names to be Canonical and half not. Apparently all the non-Canonical folks are keeping away. Can't imagine why...</s> > i can just say that i clearly see it and its scary to see what kind of > assumptions cause it in some cases. What, because we're all bloody ANGRY (it's not just me, I'm just the one who's a big enough BITCH to say anything) at being elected and then told "oh no we didn't REALLY want you to actually MAKE DECISIONS!" ? I don't have a problem with MOST individuals at Canonical. The ones who think we're supposed to be their pet ponies, though? HELL YES. -- Mackenzie Morgan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
