On 06/18/10 05:43, Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> Hmm - thats interesting, I subconsciously read the two questions into >> the one posted. I accept you point. Its something I am likely to >> write myself without thinking about it too much too. > > Oh, this is a good one. Without introducing the problem, it is being > assured that devrel has a problem because (some?) Gentoo users have a > problem. So I ask very straightforwardly when this was pointed out to > devrel, because I don't see the information being introduced to the > wider public that has led to this public e-mail accusing devrel of not > doing their job. Excuse me please, but how did I not turn out to ask > the right question about the information that wasn't exposed on a > public mailing list? And if I did put a vitriolic spin on it, then
Jeroen, I'm not sure if I understood all of this ^^^. Is there anything I can still turn for the better? > how > would you sanctify your actions that bypassed normal procedure without > actually at least summarising how that procedure ran to a dead end? My latest thread of communication with them ended in X treating me like a child and me ending the discussion due to that. Best, Sebastian
