From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16486 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2008 11:15:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 16478 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2008 11:15:43 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:15:24 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-4-117.inter.net.il [84.228.4.117]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id KHX95107 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:14:46 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:34:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Bob Rossi CC: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20080222222124.GH26716@brasko.net> (message from Bob Rossi on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:21:24 -0500) Subject: Re: New MI maintainer Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <18363.14758.855327.355215@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080220190512.4550A8FC6D@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18364.37907.135913.269853@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18366.14530.875406.113087@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <47BF0478.1050209@ix.netcom.com> <20080222220927.GA21434@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20080222222124.GH26716@brasko.net> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00203.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:21:24 -0500 > From: Bob Rossi > > > It's interesting how often people try to tack on bigger concerns to the > > simple concept of Free Software. Free Software isn't supposed to be > > solving global warming and it isn't supposed to be a demonstration of a > > New World Order with feel-good cum ba yah. It's just a guarantee that > > you get the source code for the software that you're using. > > > > Managing any project where people are involved means that sometimes the > > people in charge have to have frank, private conversations. The > > alternative, as Stan Shebs, notes is to essentially do performance > > reviews in the open. > > > > Some projects *do* work that way but they are hardly bastions of > > civilized discourse. > > This rhetoric annoys me. I was bringing up a sincere concern that I > have. I suggested a more open model because I've been wondering for > well over 5 years why it (used to?) takes 6 months to get a code review. The long review time has nothing to do with the issue at hand, or with the above rhetoric.