[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-project
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-project] Deferred decision: Forums (specifically OTW)
From:       desultory <desultory () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2019-06-16 4:52:51
Message-ID: 7a9310dc-24eb-b7b4-9f33-de1f02408d1d () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 06/15/19 07:17, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:53 PM desultory <desultory@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On 06/12/19 22:36, Alec Warner wrote:
> > 
> > > > A bunch of untrimmed quoted stuff irrelevant to his reply (some of which was \
> > > > already drifting offtopic).
> > > 
> > > A bunch of stuff putting words into other people's mouths which had nothing to \
> > > do with the topic.
> > 
> > Since conversations from IRC are being pulled in, one point that you
> > mentioned in our recent discussion was that, at least by your
> > impression, some (unspecified) members of the council were actively
> > seeking to cause the council and trustees to vote in opposition to one
> > another.
> 
> Can we stick to the topic of this thread, which is what if anything to
> do with the forums?
> 
Given where I posted the questions, it seemed obvious to me that they
were in regards to issues raised during a conversation specifically
regarding the topic at hand. Despite your protestation, it still seems
obvious to me.

> If you want to start yet another metastructure debate just start
> another thread.  We already have half a dozen such threads starting
> due to the upcoming election, which makes this debate actually
> somewhat timely, and one is somewhat tangentially related to your
> question.  We don't need to take over every other discussion on the
> lists with it.
> 
I had two very specific questions, both of which are likely to yield
response of limited scope if simply answered instead of responded to
with yet another display of bathos. All I am asking of council members
who specifically seek divergent votes by the council and trustees, if
such parties in their own estimation exist, is to tell us of what
benefit they would see in divergent votes by the council and trustees.
Outside of that group of council members which where addressed as an
unconfirmed theoretical entity, the only other party I was inquiring
with was antarus. So the scope of my posted inquires was neither broad
in scope nor in the set of those from which responses were sought.

If necessary, the question could again be raised generally for all those
running, but that would not necessarily address the views of sitting
council members, which was the specific scope of my present inquiry.

> And while we're at it, can we just let people state their own opinions
> if they care to?  I realize everybody around here feels deprived if I
> don't weigh in on every single thread, but it isn't necessary to
> paraphrase from the book of rich0 when for some reason he is
> neglecting his no-doubt-numerous disciples on a thread that isn't
> directly related to what is being cited...  I mean, historically it
> hasn't been THAT hard to flame-bait me into responding to stuff...
> 
Given that you are not presently on the council, it seems rather
unlikely that you would be a present council member actively seeking
divergent votes from the council and trustees. Further, making earnest
inquires hardly seeks to qualify as deliberate flame bait, especially
not baiting you when you are expressly not one of the parties whose
opinion was sought. So, like, chill and stuff.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]