On Jan 23, 2008 3:29 PM, Eric Boutilier <Eric.Boutilier at sun.com> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2008 1:29 PM, Eric Boutilier <Eric.Boutilier at sun.com> wrote: > >> Shawn, > >> > >> Sidenote: In your last post, you majorly conflated other peoples' > >> concerns with my concerns. Maybe something I said prompted that... > >> but whatever. The important thing is, you wrote: > > > > I was addressing concerns in the email that you had posted that was > > from you and Peter. > > > > I wasn't trying to address any issues outside of the email you posted. > > One of us is mixed up then. Let's take that offline though. > More below... > > > > > > >> I'd say that's extremely promising news, and potentially extremely > >> /excellent/ news if we hear from them directly. > > > > I want to be clear that neither Erast's or Moinak's assent to be a > > contributor to the group is strictly an indication of agreement and > > willingness to be part of the proposed Community Group. > > > > Oh. :-( > > -1 from me to the proposal. (On the same grounds that I expressed in > the last paragraph of the June e-mail that I copied here earlier today.)
Sorry I completely botched that and just realised it now. The difference one word makes: "I want to be clear that Erast's *AND* Moinak's assent to be a contributor to the group is strictly an indication of agreement and willingness to be part of the proposed Community Group." What I was trying to say is that they agreed to participate in the group as one of the core contributors, they did not indicate they would be moving their associated distribution projects to this group. Sorry, I screwed that up the first time. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
