> The last time I was involved with an issue brought to the TC, it had
> been brought after zero discussion between the person filing the bug
> and the relevant team. Complaining to the TC about a bug that's been
> dormant for years only a few days after resurrecting discussion about
> it (AIUI)
> Steve> Better skills for handling interpersonal conflict can
> never
> Steve> be a bad thing. However, the Technical Committee exists
> as a
> Steve> decision-making body of last resort, when consensus is not
> Steve> possible (because two parties have incompatible goals, or
>
On November 3, 2017 9:09:31 PM EDT, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes:
>
>Steve> Hi Diane,
>Steve> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:48:05AM -0700, Diane Trout wrote:
>>> I only just subscribed and only have read some of the discussion
>>> so this may be a bit
> "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes:
Steve> Hi Diane,
Steve> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:48:05AM -0700, Diane Trout wrote:
>> I only just subscribed and only have read some of the discussion
>> so this may be a bit off topic or already discussed.
>> But I was wondering if t
Hi Diane,
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:48:05AM -0700, Diane Trout wrote:
> I only just subscribed and only have read some of the discussion so
> this may be a bit off topic or already discussed.
> But I was wondering if the project has thought about explicitly
> encouraging mentoring in techniques
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 03:24:21PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> I recall the user debate being shut down before it had even started,
> complete with censored posts and deleted threads, because the Maintainers
> Have Spoken. Because they "did the work." Your user opinion is "noise."
> I recall the slogan
On 10/31/2017 01:36 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Russ Allbery
There are two primary reasons why we're continuing to discuss this. One
is that the decision went a direction that a lot of people didn't, and
don't, like, and they're still unhappy about it. There's really nothing
that can be don
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Thanks for your mail. I have trimmed vigorously the parts I
Ian> agreed with :-).
Thanks again for your mail.
I also trim parts where I think we understand each other and seem to be
in general agreement.
I want to explicitly call out your analysis
8 matches
Mail list logo
