On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>> I would prefer for President, EVP, directors to agree on a single email
>> alias that is an unarchived alias, with a published list of the specific
>> ASF Officers or Members that
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Joe Schaefer 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
a
If you can find all the same detailed explanations that Shane has provided
in your paragraph simply saying "because I believe we still archive the
president@ alias" I'll buy you a beer.
Also, Joe, I'm sorry to say that -- but I do find your writing style *very*
difficult to follow when it comes to
To a native English reader, Shane's commentary is perfectly aligned with
Marvin's patch. 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.
How about letting peopl
Here is what Shane said:"Emails to president@ (as far as I can tell) go to an
alias which
forwards to Ross (and EVP, and possibly someone else), as well as going
to an archived mailbox which I and others can access (not sure if it's
just a group of officers & board, or if this archive is Member ac
Here was your reply to me when I first pointed out the deficiencies with
president@. So much for the difficult to understand flowery prose, you keep
changing your stripes with each passing hour:
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
>
> Having a foundation wide CoC is great,
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Here's what I wrote to you on members@ Roman:
>
> """
> You're overlooking the archiving problem with president@ Roman.
> That we tell people in the CoC that a report to that channel is available
> to roughly 600 people unknown to them is need
Here's what I wrote to you on members@ Roman:
"""You're overlooking the archiving problem with president@ Roman.That we tell
people in the CoC that a report to that channel is availableto roughly 600
people unknown to them is needed if we are going tonot paper over the fact that
it's really not
Is a president-private@ mail forward out of the question? If the president
is part of the problem, then inform to send to board-private@ instead?
Niclas
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Joe Schaefer
> wrote:
> > Roman,
> > I've been be
