keenerd wrote: > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Xyne <x...@archlinux.ca> wrote: > > The issue as I see it is that you presented the idea on this list for > > discussion but didn't care to follow that discussion until a conclusion was > > reached. > > It seemed discussion had petered out. > > > Some TUs objected to the bot and I think you should have taken those > > objections into consideration (e.g. that icons should be tolerated, etc). > > In the days before the launch there were seven replies. Of these, > three were positive and four were neutral. Not one negative comment > or objection. (From just TUs: 1 positive, 2 neutral, 0 negative.) > All advice given in the neutral comments was applied. Tone of the > message was greatly lightened in the case of icons. Silly workarounds > like base64 were removed. No one commented on the number or choice of > packages in the lists attached to the original post. > > I will look for stronger consensus in the future.
Fair enough. I still have a different interpretation of how the discussion went but delving into that wouldn't serve any real purpose and it would just feel like nitpicking. I also realize that it wasn't as active as I may have perceived it. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? :| /Xyne