From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C336138330 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:03:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F04ADE08F6; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:03:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96C53E085B for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:03:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [130.149.91.41] (shishapangma.kbs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.91.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D6FC335C3C for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:03:37 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming posting restrictions on the gentoo-dev mailing list To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <1685019.DAF74n7IXa@pinacolada> <20180110054855.GA4483@angelfall.a21an.org> <1515578019.1284.3.camel@gentoo.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Ch=c3=ad-Thanh_Christopher_Nguy=e1=bb=85n?= Message-ID: <32074f28-2a68-1ff6-f011-e461aa3af277@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:03:27 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.5.0 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 In-Reply-To: <1515578019.1284.3.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: bb7f139b-979c-4075-90d7-5eaff579ef5e X-Archives-Hash: 391a47d8015a8c05afd1e4e8d05b7c51 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny schrieb: > I guess you should have voiced your opinion back when discussion was > taking place instead of being hostile *now* because the Council listene= d > to what the developers requested. The arguments why these posting restrictions are a pretty bad idea have=20 all been voiced back then already. So no point in posting them again=20 each time. But of course it is also true that Council is elected by and acts on=20 behalf of the developers. So my suggestion for developers who heavily=20 disagree with this decision is to look at who voted which way in the=20 public logs. Then read carefully who in their next Council election=20 manifesto plans to lift this restriction again. Best regards, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n