[SM-Discuss] New stable grimoire released
Seth Alan Woolley
seth at positivism.org
Fri May 27 14:57:07 EDT 2005
Nobody hid it. It hit the list within a day or two of the discussions,
and nobody had made any decisions. As far as I'm concerned I'm supposed
to make the final decision and I'm nowhere near that point, but I'm
inclined to let them go their both ways and use the one that's done
first. That it's in the release notes eliminates your criticism that it
should have been discussed more openly -- there's nothing more open than
the release notes which hit not just the mailing list but every user.
I really can't understand what your problem is besides an emotional
implication resulting from the fact that you weren't involved in a
random ad-hoc discussion on irc. There were no scheduled meetings, the
discussion just materialized. When it happened, I let people know
discussion happened and that it continues. I'm essentially being
criticized for not sending a _separate_ email about it with more limited
distribution, and you won't just let go of it all because it was implied
that you were merely an indirect stakeholder. Cut me some slack here,
and let's remember there are humans on both ends of the connection.
And I would have sent out my own release announcement except my brain
was frying from a virus and I asked Arwed to send out the email so I
didn't have to and could go home and try to sleep it off.
Can we just drop it? You've made your point -- I don't really see the
big deal -- but at least I know that you want to be considered for any
decision made on prometheus. It has to end somewhere, let it be here.
And for what it's worth, I'm sorry I implied you were an indirect
stakeholder. Clearly, by now, everybody knows you aren't.
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 10:10:20AM -0400, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 21:27 -0700, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> > Listen, nobody made an effort to disclude you. You're overreacting,
> I wasn't until I was called "indirect stakeholder."
> > especially since your whole argument is pointless because you're able to
> > discuss it right now due to my revealing that there was even a
> "Reveal" it better next time. Or don't hide it to begin with, there's
> going to be nothing to reveal.
> > discussion. "Debate continues" -- that means it's by no means settled.
> > If it's so important, let's discuss it rather than discuss the discussion.
> I believe it's important that if you want to discuss something of this
> size and impact you call for interested participants. A simple email on
> the list will be just fine, thanks!
Seth Alan Woolley [seth at positivism.org], SPAM/UCE is unauthorized
Key id 00BA3AF3 = 8BE0 A72E A47E A92A 0737 F2FF 7A3F 6D3C 00BA 3AF3
Quality Assurance Team Leader; Security Team Member, Leader Emeritus
Linux so advanced, it may as well be magic http://www.sourcemage.org
Elected Coordinating Committee Member, Secretary, and Finances Chair
Pacific Green Party of Oregon - Peace - http://www.pacificgreens.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20050527/acb6b183/attachment.bin
More information about the SM-Discuss