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 1OPo9x-0001K3-46 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 02:51:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F2608E0845; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 02:51:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7A2E080D for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 02:51:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (e179007228.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.179.7.228]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A29D1B4001 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2010 02:51:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4C1C30B7.1020300@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 04:51:35 +0200 From: Sebastian Pipping User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100419 Thunderbird/3.0.4 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] Re: Tone in Gentoo References: <4C195135.1050702@gentoo.org> <1276802953.2335.2@NeddySeagoon> <20100618054354.312cd6d3@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <20100618054354.312cd6d3@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 6f438b3b-bb73-42ef-ae67-18ac49441bf1 X-Archives-Hash: baea06d3aaca37251767f9ab7ac9e2d9 On 06/18/10 05:43, Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> Hmm - thats interesting, I subconsciously read the two questions into >> the one posted. I accept you point. Its something I am likely to >> write myself without thinking about it too much too. > > Oh, this is a good one. Without introducing the problem, it is being > assured that devrel has a problem because (some?) Gentoo users have a > problem. So I ask very straightforwardly when this was pointed out to > devrel, because I don't see the information being introduced to the > wider public that has led to this public e-mail accusing devrel of not > doing their job. Excuse me please, but how did I not turn out to ask > the right question about the information that wasn't exposed on a > public mailing list? And if I did put a vitriolic spin on it, then Jeroen, I'm not sure if I understood all of this ^^^. Is there anything I can still turn for the better? > how > would you sanctify your actions that bypassed normal procedure without > actually at least summarising how that procedure ran to a dead end? My latest thread of communication with them ended in X treating me like a child and me ending the discussion due to that. Best, Sebastian