On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 01:35, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:45 PM abebeos <lazaridis.com+abeb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > The bounty was filed/advertised by the gcc project, so the gcc project > should have intervened immediately at the point where an anonymous coward > rigged the voting process (aborted the vote before end of the voting > period). > > > > The fact that I need to explain this is quite a tragedy. > > I've already done my best to explain the distinction between GCC and > Bountysource. There is not distinction. GCC project-resources were used, GCC participants everywhere, so this is a GCC matter. I'll not comment further on your beyond ridiculous "line of defense". I just hope that you are in no way related to the leadership of GCC/GNU. > You are blaming the wrong people here. The bounty was > not filed by the GCC project. It was not advertised by the GCC > project. I know nothing about the Bountysource voting process because > it has nothing to do with GCC. The fact that people associated in > some way with the bounty process commented on a GCC bug report does > not mean that the GCC project had anything to do with the bounty. > > Ian >
