Perhaps I'm just so much used to seeing automatic signatures separated
by "-- \r\n" and consider non-separated text as "typed by the author".
(And yes, Chris, I need beer from pubs :) )
Cheers,
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signatu
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Perhaps he feels in such a way because your mail wasn't really "please
> talk about it elsewhere", but rather a "warning" (at least that's how I
> perceived it) and you signed it as a "Gentoo Developer Relations Lead".
> I hope this helps you understand why someone might have
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 23:27 +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> and you signed it as a "Gentoo Developer Relations Lead".
Umm... because that's her .sig?
Wow. I'm really surprised that this concept is foreign to people. Are
you saying that you need beer from the pub because of your signature?
Are you s
I'm adding Developer Relations to this email and will be filing a formal
complaint against you. Have a good day.
lol.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Chrissy Fullam wrote:
> I appreciate your opinion and your right to have such an opinion, however, I
> have a hard time understanding your reason for said opinion. I would expect
> any person to be able to say 'enough' and 'lets take this elsewhere.'
Perhaps he feels in such a way because your mai
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 22:42 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 09-01-2008 13:03:13 -0800, Chrissy Fullam wrote:
> > You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which quite
> > frankly should be kept off this mailing list. His negative experiences
> > throughout all of 2007 with Con
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 09-01-2008 13:03:13 -0800, Chrissy Fullam wrote:
> > You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which
> > quite frankly should be kept off this mailing list. ...
> > Let's take this discussion elsewhere.
>
> IMHO, you have a very big conflict of int
On 09-01-2008 13:03:13 -0800, Chrissy Fullam wrote:
> You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which quite
> frankly should be kept off this mailing list. His negative experiences
> throughout all of 2007 with Conflict Resolution and consequently Developer
> Relations justify a
> > > Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > > they get to devrel because you ensured there would be no one to
> > > catch them --- you are the one who wanted to kill off the
> > > proctors, after all.
> >
> > Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > ...and the finger-pointing starts... Bravo!
>
> Ferris McCormick wro
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 11:51 -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 14:00 +, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > they get to devrel because you ensured there would be no one to catch
> > them --- you are the one who wanted to kill off the proctors, after
> > all.
>
> ...and the finger-
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 14:00 +, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> they get to devrel because you ensured there would be no one to catch
> them --- you are the one who wanted to kill off the proctors, after
> all.
...and the finger-pointing starts... Bravo!
I never have been able to figure out what the
Ferris McCormick wrote:
> With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors anymore to
> enforce
> the CoC.
The perception is that they aren't/weren't _exactly_ needed as they are,
either because nobody wants the secret policy feeling or because self
regulation is working almost nicely
> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors
> anymore to enforce the CoC. Thus, things we would expect the
> proctors to catch and handle under CoC get sent to devrel
> instead. All I am doing is wondering out loud (now that CoC
> is coming alive a
13 matches
Mail list logo
