keenerd wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
The issue as I see it is that you presented the idea on this list for discussion but didn't care to follow that discussion until a conclusion was reached.
It seemed discussion had petered out.
Some TUs objected to the bot and I think you should have taken those objections into consideration (e.g. that icons should be tolerated, etc).
In the days before the launch there were seven replies. Of these, three were positive and four were neutral. Not one negative comment or objection. (From just TUs: 1 positive, 2 neutral, 0 negative.) All advice given in the neutral comments was applied. Tone of the message was greatly lightened in the case of icons. Silly workarounds like base64 were removed. No one commented on the number or choice of packages in the lists attached to the original post.
I will look for stronger consensus in the future.
Fair enough. I still have a different interpretation of how the discussion went but delving into that wouldn't serve any real purpose and it would just feel like nitpicking. I also realize that it wasn't as active as I may have perceived it. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? :| /Xyne