On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:10:20AM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: > Jon Portnoy wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:40:59AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: > > > >>This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This > >>is > >>how I personally think this should be handled in future. > >> > > > > > > Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the job quite so > > often & so hard before handling this particular incident. I don't think > > it's so unreasonable to have backup plans for preserving Gentoo when > > devrel cannot respond in a timely manner > > Come on, this is FUD. Devrel had had a plenty of time to make an action > *and* to talk to infra in the recent case. They had decided *not* to do > that - which means that they didn't consider it apropriate, IMHO. > > Or am I really missing something obvious? >
My point is that when devrel breaks infra has to pick up the pieces, thus it makes sense for them to have that angle covered. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
