Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 02/24/09 20:14 CST: > On Tue, Feb 24, at 07:57 Randy McMurchy wrote:
I'm thinking it's better to leave this one alone, but since there's a distinct item Ag leaves out, it needs to be said. >> Ticket 2539: Same as the previous one. And again obsolete as Bruce took >> care of it not long after Jeremy submitted a patch. Again, Jeremy is >> not an Editor, so I really don't see where you're going with this. > > You are absolutely wrong about this. We've discussed this, in a private > (between all the editors of the project, except Gerard, Robert, Jim and > Ryan) conversation last year, and the conclusion was an open call to all > non BLFS editors to commit anytime they think they have something to > contribute. That's not the way I remember it. In fact, I sent an open letter to all Editors in the project asking if they wanted to become BLFS Editors as well. Some accepted, some did not. Those that accepted were added to the list of Editors and such pointed out in a public announcement. If some that accepted didn't get public announcement, then that would be a mistake on my part, yet I would know that they've accepted the position. Jeremy declined the offer, therefore, I never have thought him as one that should make commits to the book. If you find somewhere that I've said elsewhere, I'd like you to point it out to me. I could then say I am in error and didn't recall such conversation. Please don't just blindly say something as important as this without some link to a thread where you say it was discussed. If it was in private emails, then of course, we need to move this discussion to private emails. >> All I can think of Ag, is that you're upset I overlooked your patch you >> sent in. Get over it. I've been busy. It's not like you sent any reminders. >> It's almost as though you been waiting to use this to take a poke at me. >> >> I'd prefer and you simply man up (American expression meaning grow a pair), >> and come to me with anything that's on your mind. Not hold it in and use >> it months later in some effort of trying to take a poke at me. > > Excuse me, but how you came up with that conclusion? Thinking out loud at the keyboard. It is an opinion. I'm entitled to it even if my opinion is dead wrong. Anyway, I wasn't trying to be personal, I mostly was trying to convey to you that you need to communicate better. If I somehow don't respond to something you are expecting me to respond to, then send an email, post again, do something. Just as I did when I mentioned twice that DJ commented on one of my commits which he though was wrong, and I had to ask him twice after the initial remark I made before he responded back to me. We are all busy. I know I read messages knowing I don't have the time to respond right then, but I read them thinking that I'll get back and respond. Sometimes the "get back and respond" gets neglected due to time constraints. This is something that Open Source needs to be flexible with and team-members (you and I for example) need to communicate so things don't get dropped. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 20:35:00 up 17 days, 12:58, 1 user, load average: 0.25, 0.18, 0.12 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
