From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nx7fD-0003ky-3A for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:49:35 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A9B08E0E3A; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:49:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE08BE0E2E for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:49:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (e179031177.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.179.31.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33141B4058 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:49:18 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4BB3DF7B.1070808@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 01:49:15 +0200 From: Sebastian Pipping User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100331 Thunderbird/3.0.3 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org References: <201003311720.40465.vapier@gentoo.org> <4BB3BF9D.9010500@gentoo.org> <201003311909.07731.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201003311909.07731.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 89e89d48-6edb-4414-b5ba-abc3e64ffea1 X-Archives-Hash: ce6d1ed280ae14f7a6ff23e8b5535bb4 On 04/01/10 01:09, Mike Frysinger wrote: > no one is forcing you to, nor is anyone talking about having teams use it. if > Gentoo developers themselves choose to, it's going to happen irregardless of > what Alec is proposing. we are talking about public, shared work on gentoo - not about stuff people do in private. > your logic does not lead to the statement that gentoo-core is the appropriate > place. point takes, it's not the non-technical nature - i should put it clearer: it's the fact that everyone on the net will be able to read what anyone said on google in this thread. any one of us may change his mind on that but the internet won't. does that make it clear now why that thread belongs to gentoo-core to me? > a bit ironic you espouse using open source software on fully controlled > systems in one half while suggesting people use the closed gentoo-core mailing > list in another ... not every kind of open and closed are in contrast. i don't see any irony here. the FSF is doing PR strategy stuff behind closed doors too, what's the problem? sebastian