From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JCtHg-0000uN-3X for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:01:08 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D2427E0AC3; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:01:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org (170.Red-213-96-222.staticIP.rima-tde.net [213.96.222.170]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FBF3E0AC3 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:01:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1854B8D30C for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:07:36 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at ferdyx.org Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tungsteno.ferdyx.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VLuForpAK1Lq for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:07:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from snowcone (unknown [213.121.151.206]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F778D306 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:07:34 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:56:58 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January Message-ID: <20080110065658.18066b6a@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <1199908487.8082.24.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> References: <20080101103002.083C4652C4@smtp.gentoo.org> <54551.192.168.2.159.1199365359.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> <20080109121309.GA14454@ferdyx.org> <50574.192.168.2.159.1199888711.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> <1199908487.8082.24.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.12.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/hB4ElGfbLAE9HYxD92cj/27"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: bb4a1ccc-44b6-4bf5-a196-46145f4824a3 X-Archives-Hash: 0f50ec023642ed46b23f73c640081039 --Sig_/hB4ElGfbLAE9HYxD92cj/27 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:54:47 -0800 Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 09:25 -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote: > > I never even mentioned any specific arch in my original request, nor > > did I call any developer out. So please, nobody needs to take this > > personally. >=20 > Correct, you did not. What I find absolutely *damning* is the fact > that as soon as any arches *were* mentioned, everybody was talking > about the same one. It's rather funny that everybody seems to have > the exact same impression of what architecture might be a slacker and > would be affected by this. I wonder why that is? Because we all know it's a euphemism, like "state rights". --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/hB4ElGfbLAE9HYxD92cj/27 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHhcG996zL6DUtXhERAgJqAJ95QW5ZnushNIg/cx83KGhxs8jmYwCg1sag zl0ejLPndws51Q2ojX/kxk4= =hgam -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/hB4ElGfbLAE9HYxD92cj/27-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list