-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mark Little wrote: > On 4 Oct 2006, at 23:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > >> You will, of course, infer and interpret events as you choose. >> It's pretty obvious to me, a complete outsider, that there was >> nothing 'random' about this at all. > > "obvious" has nothing to do with it. Check your facts in future > please.
Lighten up, Mark. I'm describing things from *my* perspective. Don't tell me what my perspective is. I'm also responding to the question you posed in the very first message in this thread, before additional information was revealed, in light of that information. And yes, it's 'obvious' to me, in the same way that if someone said Gandhi created al-Qaeda it would be 'obviously' incorrect. When I referred to myself as a 'complete outsider,' I meant with regard to this specific issue, not wrt the ASF or incubator. I *do* have a little experience with those. If anyone considered altering the committer list, and it got altered, there's nothing random about that. And that appears - -- to me -- to be what happened. So to answer your very pointed question: "Is random denial of initial commiters typical?" I say, "No, it isn't, and I don't think that's what happened here." >> Again, you will draw your own conclusions. Of course, your remark >> assumes that 'all the facts' are generally and publicly available, >> and 'all the parties involved' are equally well-advertised. > > In an open process I'd assume that was certainly the case. Then I think your expectations are impossibly high. There will *always* be facts and relationships not universally known. And people are people, and will forget things and have their own opinions about what's relevant and needing of mention -- and what isn't. The trick is to make sure that the *critical* ones *are* known. And that won't always happen. >> *My* inference and interpretation is that there is absolutely >> no/zero/nada institutional malice involved. > > And has anyone implied any different? I certainly haven't. Sorry, but it seemed to me from remarks like this: > Sorry, but being strung along for the past 2 months on one set of > assumptions only to be presented with a fait accomplit and > Any objections should have been raised there and then, or the list > pruned later by constructive and open debate. Not behind closed doors > but a select few. that you felt you were being discriminated against. If that's not what you meant or how you feel, I apologise for misunderstanding. - -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRSUOfZrNPMCpn3XdAQLx6QQAp+AE7MR47w6DFUnOTgAB6AUm/gU/BQX/ amG7apSMJd/qCQ/X1TVNDBtyIkayDHgISTUeF/+mfCARhKDXuONTsagq6DysnsUZ T+iTXEXPOdkXJPnKJu12fNtCT56Qo3kmAq4byA2QMOrWqK3xmYR8oxkYw7n+kUa+ e2KTmI6ZBK0= =ieWm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
