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 CBBAB1382C5 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:41:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B8D50E09C4; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:41:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (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 485B2E09B1 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:41:14 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <91011fc0315ae3ba57c90b7695bd1f97c99e404d.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2021-01-10 (late call, meeting this week!) From: David Seifert To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 13:41:05 +0100 In-Reply-To: <297c8a90-bbf5-95b4-f431-51af7477b50f@gentoo.org> References: <20210105184436.02bb5216@sf> <3e026015371226a2f039a5bc5938c7c314634528.camel@gentoo.org> <8c1c0b42-47c6-ee7f-5cbf-61555b2327d2@gentoo.org> <6ea7726394d21aae263ad3f69c42e4c4cd8719b7.camel@gentoo.org> <297c8a90-bbf5-95b4-f431-51af7477b50f@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 57d4575c-a7d4-4435-9073-2109827cb984 X-Archives-Hash: 267a1fad899274f7049df4a7837ef5c8 On Sun, 2021-01-10 at 23:57 -0500, desultory wrote: > > So, just to be clear, you are pushing a suggestion which received much > more negative feedback than positive and which you avoid following > whenever possible? Kinda odd then that it was accepted by the council unanimously, don't you think?