On Apr 6, 2005 12:16 PM, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 10:36 -0500, Gustavo Seabra wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2005 8:36 AM, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I surely don't get the 'it was decided' and 'reached good solutions' > > > that Gustavo is claiming and then creating the nexus that something > > > unfairly was done. > > > > Craig, would you mind quoting the exact moment I used the terms 'it > > was decided' and 'reached good solutions' ? I don't reacall using them > > in this way, and i just couldn't find it in this thread. however, I do > > remember using 'it was suggested' or 'suggested good solutions'. > ---- > your phrasing is more accurate than my paraphrasing, I'm quite sure of > that. > ---- > > The > > difference is subtle but important: noone 'decided' anything. But > > there were 'suggestions' that seemed to be more widely accepted, so I > > may have writte 'better slutions' when referring to those. > ---- > You are splitting hairs on the differences between 'decided' and 'widely > accepted' but any semantical difference is lost on me when you make any > argument that uses 'widely accepted' as it's foundation. > ---- > > > > > I thought it was clear from Warren's first post that > > > the intent was to drive support needs to the forums. All of the > > > discussion after that was the mental masturbation that this list is > > > highly capable of doing and is a rather interesting form of amusement in > > > and of itself. > > > > In that you are right. Again, we have the vice of confusing > > "community" with "democracy" (as was clearly cited before), and then > > trying to stick our noses where they don't belong. > ---- > I understand that there is this notion that Fedora uses the the term > community supported quite liberally and at those moments when some want > to count on that as indicative that their opinions do count, they get > their nose out of joint when they find out that their opinions don't > really could when it comes down to it. > > Those with the power to move mountains so to speak - in Fedora seem to > be the developers, those on the development list, those actively > involved with projects that are key to the Red Hat distribution and if > you or anyone else wish to gain a voice in the direction of Fedora, then > it would behoove you to be represented there - not here. Fedora-list is > more for mental masturbation...the heavy lifting is fedora-devel- > list@xxxxxxxxxx > ---- > > > > > In the end though, multiple, overlapping support options seem to be a > > > different strokes for different folks thing. > > > > There has never been an objection to that. But notice the > > "overlapping" term you used yourself. This is the important detail > > that can't be overstressed: give people the option to access the > > information in any way they want, but keep all the information in the > > same place. > > > > The only question I would put is: is *any* post to fedoraforum appear > > automatically in the list, and vice versa? (In other words, are they > > just two different means to access the same information?) > ---- > as I said, you can't expect to get authoritative answers on this list. > You might get a diversity of opinions perhaps, but not authoritative > answers. > > This is a mail list - run by Red Hat, subject to Red Hat's rules and > despite the notion that Fedora is community supported, this list and > Fedora packages are not democratic processes. > > Craig > Why are you guys bickering over this? Time will prove which venue is better. If fedoraforums.org does not get technical support from list members, Red Hat will be required to provide support personnel (creates more jobs, good for economy).
