On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:16:39AM -0400, David Dawes wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 09:59:02PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > >And between your attitude and David's, I must say, I can see why there was a > >fuss with Keith, and why people suggested that he fork the project. If y'all > > I've been making that suggestion too. Haven't seen anything come > of it yet. Hopefully y'all won't have to wait too much longer.
Well, the way *I* heard it played was that the steering committee made noises like it would rather play nice than fork -- which in the long run would probably be a better solution. Fear of Forking, and like that. > >can't be bothered to be polite anymore, go find something else to do, 'k? > >No, really. FOSS doesn't need any bad attitudes, even this late in it's > >evolution. > > If objecting to your misrepresentation of your opinion as "right > vs wrong" is a sign of a bad attitude, then cool. I don't know > why you fail to consider that in a project as old as XFree86 this > tired old issue wasn't considered and dispatched a long long time > ago. It was. I'm sure it probably was, but I don't have time to go through 15 years of mailing list archives, and you *could* have just ignored the topic, and it would likely have gone away. > If you want to look at it as cost vs benefit, the benefit to the > subscribers (and archives) as a whole in maximising the chance that > they'll see all the discussions outweighs the cost of the occasional > misdirected private reply, in my experience over the life of XFree86. > It works for us. Unlike you, I'm not claiming that one solution > is best for all situations. As I noted, yeah, on *this* list, it's much less likely to be an issue. But it's good to make such clarifications when advocating something in that category. Munging the RT violates the Principle of Least Astonishment rather thoroughly, so even if it's a miswart, it's still worthy to be pointed out. IMHO. > As I said in another message today, you can set your own reply-to, > and it won't get overriden, so some of the stuff on Chip's page > doesn't even apply here. Noted. > A warning from the Surgeon General: Mail sent to this list may > be infected by a reply-to header pointing back to the list. Some > experts consider this harmful. The most reliable way to avoid this > potential harm is to unsubscribe from this list. > > :-) To paraphrase Van Morrison: "Just like that..." In fact, that's so good I'm going to forward it to the Considered Harmful guy. ;-) See? I'm not really a snot. Even though I did ask *about* the cleanest question on the list in the 2 weeks I've been here, and got not one answer from anyone... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows -- Simon Slavin, on a.f.c _______________________________________________ XFree86 mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xfree86
