Re: On Steve Langasek's comments
On Tuesday 24 December 2002 04:35 pm, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Eray Ozkural <eozk@bicom-inc.com> [2002-12-24 08:56]:
> > Anyway, the problem is although I wrote to James on this situation, he
> > never replied to me. Maybe he will take the opportunity to explain for
> > once and all 1. Why I am required to find FIVE sponsors?
> > 2. Who was the developer who convinced him that it should be that way?
>
> Eray asked me in private mail to comment on this thread. However, I
> wonder why... since there is nothing new to say. James has summarized
> everything quite well a few months ago, and not much has changed since
> then. See:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint-discuss/2001/debian-newmaint-discus
>s-200104/msg00041.html (I'm talking about the "Rejections" portion of that
> message, not the "Reprocessing" one.)
>
>From the largely "constitutional" message authored by none other than James
himself:
"For the benefit of the applicant more than anything else, I don't
intend to post details publicly of either form of rejection. I'm
unlikely to get involved in a public dispute, regardless, but the only
way it'll happen at all is if the applicant initiates it."
James:
Here I "initiate" such a public dispute. Please reply the three questions I
have stated in the previous e-mail. Please also post details publicly of my
"soft rejection". I really do wonder, because in the private conversation we
had on IRC you told me that it was that some other developers advised against
my approval, and it had little to do with your opinion. I would like you to
post all details, whatsoever, on this situation. I believe it is for the
benefit of "this" applicant.
Thanks,
--
Eray Ozkural <eozk@bicom-inc.com>
Software Engineer, BICOM Inc.
GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C
Reply to: