On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 08:19:09AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 07:56:04AM +0100, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 03:02:58PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > >> Yes. Tollef's opinion was that quitting was a copout and that I should > > >> instead go fix some sitewranglers bugs instead. > > > > > > Until the next time you're drunk, i'm sure. > > > > [...] > > > > (If you do choose to make a case, take the time to make sure your > > arguments are well thought out before posting. Remember, your arguments > > will have to sound convincing to a large number of people on this list, > > or you may as well not bother.) > > All arguments were made, extensively, before. > > Except maybe for one: > > The claimed reason for reinstating daniels now is that apparently nobody > else wants to take on an admin role at fd.o. I would like to know which > known dependable community members were approached for such roles before > this decision here was taken.
No-one has claimed that, except for you. What Tollef said is that as I'd harmed (the perception of) fd.o, rather than just quitting and getting to walk away, I should instead help out with fd.o admin tasks as penance: his view was that after causing some damage, I should help improve things. And as this bears out: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/sitewranglers/2011-February/date.html#7255 I've been doing just that. If any of this is still unclear, please let me know and I can try to better explain it.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: [email protected]
