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 D46DE138334 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 04:52:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 98027E0875; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 04:52:58 +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 477F2E086A for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 04:52:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.0.17] (cpe-72-227-68-175.maine.res.rr.com [72.227.68.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: desultory) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B15E2346200 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 04:52:56 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Deferred decision: Forums (specifically OTW) To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: From: desultory Message-ID: <7a9310dc-24eb-b7b4-9f33-de1f02408d1d@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 00:52:51 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 0c23bd3e-adad-4f04-afde-a0baf1ff7257 X-Archives-Hash: 7c53c745eff6e51e0c1b9f88575b758f On 06/15/19 07:17, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:53 PM desultory wrote: >> >> On 06/12/19 22:36, Alec Warner wrote: >> >>>> A bunch of untrimmed quoted stuff irrelevant to his reply (some of which was already drifting offtopic). >>> >>> A bunch of stuff putting words into other people's mouths which had nothing to do with the topic. >> >> Since conversations from IRC are being pulled in, one point that you >> mentioned in our recent discussion was that, at least by your >> impression, some (unspecified) members of the council were actively >> seeking to cause the council and trustees to vote in opposition to one >> another. > > Can we stick to the topic of this thread, which is what if anything to > do with the forums? > Given where I posted the questions, it seemed obvious to me that they were in regards to issues raised during a conversation specifically regarding the topic at hand. Despite your protestation, it still seems obvious to me. > If you want to start yet another metastructure debate just start > another thread. We already have half a dozen such threads starting > due to the upcoming election, which makes this debate actually > somewhat timely, and one is somewhat tangentially related to your > question. We don't need to take over every other discussion on the > lists with it. > I had two very specific questions, both of which are likely to yield response of limited scope if simply answered instead of responded to with yet another display of bathos. All I am asking of council members who specifically seek divergent votes by the council and trustees, if such parties in their own estimation exist, is to tell us of what benefit they would see in divergent votes by the council and trustees. Outside of that group of council members which where addressed as an unconfirmed theoretical entity, the only other party I was inquiring with was antarus. So the scope of my posted inquires was neither broad in scope nor in the set of those from which responses were sought. If necessary, the question could again be raised generally for all those running, but that would not necessarily address the views of sitting council members, which was the specific scope of my present inquiry. > And while we're at it, can we just let people state their own opinions > if they care to? I realize everybody around here feels deprived if I > don't weigh in on every single thread, but it isn't necessary to > paraphrase from the book of rich0 when for some reason he is > neglecting his no-doubt-numerous disciples on a thread that isn't > directly related to what is being cited... I mean, historically it > hasn't been THAT hard to flame-bait me into responding to stuff... > Given that you are not presently on the council, it seems rather unlikely that you would be a present council member actively seeking divergent votes from the council and trustees. Further, making earnest inquires hardly seeks to qualify as deliberate flame bait, especially not baiting you when you are expressly not one of the parties whose opinion was sought. So, like, chill and stuff.