From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Egocw-000195-GM for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:25:26 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jASJODeq023450; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:24:13 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jASJJf3k023625 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:19:42 GMT Received: from bmb24.med.uth.tmc.edu ([129.106.207.24] helo=localhost) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EgoXN-0004xX-DV for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:19:41 +0000 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:19:40 -0600 From: Grant Goodyear To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN Message-ID: <20051128191940.GB600@bmb24.uth.tmc.edu> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20051128094800.GA32340@dmz.brixandersen.dk> <20051128175430.0ebd4f4b@snowdrop.home> <1133203617.24689.5.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1133203617.24689.5.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Archives-Salt: 2ae982a4-e7e8-464b-8649-4bd69375c9c4 X-Archives-Hash: 61919f23bf53c504b7f5944d51cf8945 --7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Nov 28 2005, 12:46:57PM CST] > > Also, why not bring back the "post to -core" requirement? Make it a > > rule that it can't be labelled as an official Gentoo publication unless > > it gets some review... Heh. Personally, I've never really been all that fond of the GWN being "an official Gentoo publication"; I'd much rather see it as a true community news source. I've always thought that by making it an official publication it _appears_ to be more propaganda than news. > That Ulrich and I have made some suboptimal decisions in the past is a > fact, but why aren't there more contributors to the GWN so that we two > aren't single points of failure? I suspect that the devs most likely to write an article for the GWN are also those most likely to have a blog on planet.g.o. Given the latter, there's not much incentive for the former. -g2boojum- --=20 Grant Goodyear=09 Gentoo Developer g2boojum@gentoo.org http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 --7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDi1hMptxxUuD2W3YRAk69AJ9JP7wtLUalYNyJKGRyglIhJi72HACggHij Fv4gsFG8v41zTh/RCF9ardY= =MuzJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list