incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Little <>
Subject Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Date Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:19:27 GMT

On 5 Oct 2006, at 14:54, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> 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.

OK, fair enough ;-)

> 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.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

> 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."

It was a loaded question to start with ;-)

>>> 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.

Discriminated against? Possibly. Institutional malice? Never crossed  
my mine to be honest.


> - --
> #ken	P-)}
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
> amG7apSMJd/qCQ/X1TVNDBtyIkayDHgISTUeF/+mfCARhKDXuONTsagq6DysnsUZ
> T+iTXEXPOdkXJPnKJu12fNtCT56Qo3kmAq4byA2QMOrWqK3xmYR8oxkYw7n+kUa+
> e2KTmI6ZBK0=
> =ieWm
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message