On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:55:18 -0600, Dennis wrote:
> I was referring to things like
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2007-June/msg00120.html
>
> Where rather than work with fedora as you previously had you chose to be less
> involved. which is perfectly fine and ok.
Aha.
On Tuesday 09 March 2010 04:41:07 pm Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:54:16 -0500, Bill wrote:
> > 20:59:11 Kevin_Kofler: i dont see Michael Schwendt as
> > infulencial. he choose to largely abstain from fedora years ago
>
> Huh? Now, what exactly is your problem with me?
> What t
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 02:16 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 03/10/2010 06:55 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do
On 03/10/2010 02:16 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 06:55 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
>> meeting.
>>
>> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
>>
>
> Follow basic IRC etiquette for mee
> There are nearly no facts, so everyone is just
> guessing and many people are just ignoring objections.
That is true, indeed.
But do we really need detailed statistics to make a good decision?
All of us have an experience with Fedora over the last years. And I
*guess* ( :-) ) most or even a
On Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 17:34, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:38:53PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
[...]
> > Agreed. However, we should ask ourselves if it's better to have a package
> > in our distribution even if it doesn't fit ideally with the rest
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:38:53PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 16:22, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > > Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
> > > why package
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:22:37AM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
> > why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers.
> > No volunteer package main
On Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 16:22, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
> > why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers.
> > No volunteer package maintain
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
> why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers.
> No volunteer package maintainer is in general forced to create updates
> and I am very sure that the
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 15:51 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> It surprised me to see FESCo fight like that in a meeting. Some members
> are beside themselves in rage. Steering is hard, let's go shopping.
Whether someone is 'besides themselves in rage' is really hard to infer
from an irc log. I wou
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:59:56 +, Ewan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 07:50:25AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> > Do you like it when someone, who isn't getting their way threatens to take
> > their ball and go home?
> >
> There is a big difference between people threatening to take their b
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 07:50:25AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> Do you like it when someone, who isn't getting their way threatens to take
> their ball and go home?
>
There is a big difference between people threatening to take their ball
home if something happens that they don't like, and peopl
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:55:08 -0500 (EST), Seth wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Do you really think you're attitude has been respectful and helpful
> throughout all the time. Do you consider history at all?
It seems to be enough that you do. Whatever you may remember
correctly, I don't know what it is.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:38:09PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> >> 20:45:42 cwickert: people threatening to leave should leave
>> >> 20:45:48 orphan your packages and go
>> >> 20:45:57 I'll be glad to clean up that mess
>>
>> While the phrasing may or may not be over the top, I read that m
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> I can agree with that last sentence in parts. Please don't forget the
> order of incidents, however. First the early-warning system with hundreds
> of messages and multiple threads, which made several packagers think "do
> they want to ruin the co
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Seth, respect would be a good starting point.
>
>> 20:45:30 I know there are people that will leave Fedora if
>> we decide a policy that forbids major updates. both users and
>> contributors
>> 20:45:42 cwickert: people threatening to leave shoul
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:47:00 -0500, Josh wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:07:39AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
> >
> >> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
> >> meeting.
> >>
> >> Jonathan, D
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 06:47:00AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:07:39AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
> >
> >> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
> >> meeting.
> >>
> >>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 06:47:00AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> "We shouldn't be held hostage to various threats. We shouldn't be afraid to
> try something because a vocal few are ranting against it."
>
> I could, of course, be very wrong. However threatening to leave the project
> if various t
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:25:06PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>
> > On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >> ===
> >> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
> >> ===
> >>
>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:07:39AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
>
>> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
>> meeting.
>>
>> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
>
>Set
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Christoph Wickert
wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
>
>> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
>> meeting.
>>
>> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
>
> Seth, resp
Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
> meeting.
>
> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
Seth, respect would be a good starting point.
> 20:45:30 I know there are pe
On 03/10/2010 06:55 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
> meeting.
>
> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
>
Follow basic IRC etiquette for meetings
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_IRC#Meetin
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 00:05 +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > ===
> > #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
> > ===
> >
> >
> > Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full logs a
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jonathan Underwood
wrote:
> On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> ===
>> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
>> ===
>>
>>
>> Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full logs are avail
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> ===
>> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
>> ===
>>
>>
>> Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
>
On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> ===
> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
> ===
>
>
> Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-03-0
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:54:16 -0500, Bill wrote:
> 20:59:11 Kevin_Kofler: i dont see Michael Schwendt as infulencial.
> he choose to largely abstain from fedora years ago
>
Huh? Now, what exactly is your problem with me?
What the heck are you referring to?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedo
30 matches
Mail list logo
