On 02/01/2016 11:36 AM, Martin Roth wrote:
> What I don't read in that blog post is anything about the
> coreboot project being a democracy.
I'd normally find such a statement very disappointing, but I'm pretty
certain you're off on that one. I'm not sure how involved you've been in
coreboot publi
I meant to send this to the mailing list on Saturday, but ended up just
sending it to Paul by accident.
Paul,
This thread quickly followed one point that you commented on, but
has so far not touched much on one of your other issues. This is the
issue of leadership of the coreboot community. Yo
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Stefan Reinauer
wrote:
>
> That is a really surprising statement coming from you, Alex, as you and I
> have discussed this very topic in person several times
And as I have said in those very same discussions, decisions about
coreboot shold be done publicly. You're
* Alex G. [160131 00:05]:
> I conclude from these, that your assertion that this has been an
> unspoken rule, is not true. Furthermore, I believe that this arbitrary
> change was done as an act of spite towards a set of engineers. Also,
> since you, and the rest of the coreboot leadership have sho
Alex,
Please stop already. We know you don't agree with the decision.
Stefan has agreed privately that he shouldn't have submitted those,
and that it set a bad precedent. As you say in your email, *YOU* even
questioned it when he did it, and he agreed that he would change them
from Intel syntax
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 3:06 PM Alex G. wrote:
> Furthermore, I believe that this arbitrary
> change was done as an act of spite towards a set of engineers.
Well, wow. This just got weird. I think I'm done with this discussion.
ron
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.c
On 01/30/2016 11:30 AM, ron minnich wrote:
> The change to the guidelines is hence a codification of a practice that
> goes back to the project's beginnings.
I find that statement inaccurate. This practice had not been an issue in
the past, on patches that you yourself approved. Mixed syntaxes hav
The requirement for ATT syntax was set informally in 2001, when I had some
partners from U. Md. who were advocating for Intel syntax. We discovered
that having two syntaxes is unworkable.
>From that time we assumed that everyone would use a common syntax. It
certainly never occurred to us that we
2016-01-30 15:26 GMT+01:00 Paul Menzel :
> But then, I wondered why I was not aware of that section in the
> development guidelines [2], and wanted to read up on it. While at it, I
> also looked through the history, and there I see, that it was only
> added [3] on the same day.
We had mentions of i
Dear coreboot folks,
I’d like to request for a policy on how the coreboot development
guidelines are changed.
### Background ###
The discussion in patch set #11784 [1] confused me quite a bit.
Especially, seeing Aaron’s quote of the development guidelines I
thought, why is this even discussed
10 matches
Mail list logo
