On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: > To a native English reader, Shane's commentary is perfectly aligned with > Marvin's patch.
Yes. Which is why I wrote: "Marvin, at this point what I'm about to ask of you is grossly unfair (since your proposal, apparently doesn't really make anything worse) but would you consider the above statement by Shane to be your course of action?" Marvin patch can definitely go ahead since it does NOT make the current horrible situation any worse. It simply doesn't make it any better. Hence +0 on it. That said -- I still don't understand why we shouldn't follow the proposal that Shane outlined. If you're rushing to apply Marvin's patch -- fine -- go ahead. I'll take care of Shane's approach over the weekend and replace it then. > There are absolutely no gaps in direction despite your > fierce irrational opposition to having a pair of board members try to get > something meaningful accomplished for the foundation. Could you, please stop with posturing(*)? We had a discussion. That corrected my understanding of what president@a.o does. What's difficult about this to understand? > How about letting people who want to fix this have a go at it without > further obstruction and obfuscation, Roman? The patch doesn't fix anything. It simply make an already horrible situation no more horrible. Thanks, Roman.
