Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org>]

Listen, nobody made an effort to disclude you.  You're overreacting, 
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 
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.

Seth

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 11:48:44PM -0400, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> Next time I decide to rewrite a spell, say Firefox, I will only ask
> direct stakeholders if that's a good idea. When I thus remove or break a
> feature that was not used by those direct stakeholders, you would
> immediately understand my concern here. Please don't try to remove
> people from discussion by deciding for them if something is in their
> interest or not. I looked at release notes page again, and I didn't see
> any mention of who direct stakeholders are. The word "stakeholder" is
> not found on any of our Wiki pages:
> http://wiki.sourcemage.org/index.php?action=find&find=stakeholder
> This is not a personal attack, mind you, it's not about you, it's about
> the way decisions are discussed. You could have called for a discussion
> publicly and nobody would show up anyway who were not interested, but I
> believe that was not done.
> 
> Sergey.
> 
> On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 14:48 -0700, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> > Direct stakeholder is 1) the person wanting to rewrite it, 2) the person 
> > who 
> > wrote it, and 3) QA Team members.
> > 
> > You're an indirect stakeholder under that scheme.  I posted it in the 
> > release notes so that people could join into that discussion if they 
> > wanted to -- it's not like anybody's made a decision behind your back or 
> > anything :).
> > 
> > Seth
> > 
> > On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 05:19:54PM -0400, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> > > Should I consider this as an acknowledgement of me or any other 
> > > developer (who's
> > > not included into this discussion) as not a "direct stakeholder?"
> > > 
> > > Quoting Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org>:
> > > 
> > > >On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 03:46:13PM -0400, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> > > >>Quoting Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>:
> > > >>
> > > >>>[0] http://wiki.sourcemage.org/index.php?page=Stable0.0Notes
> > > >>
> > > >>From this page:
> > > >>> prometheus will either be resurrected or rewritten -- debate ensues
> > > >>
> > > >>Where is the debate taking place, forums, irc? It's certainly not on 
> > > >>the
> > > >>list.
> > > >
> > > >On IRC between the various direct stakeholders.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
> 

-- 
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

Attachment: pgphc_53D9Pxp.pgp
Description: PGP signature