Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs
- From: Lucas Nussbaum <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:54:57 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20100915135457.GA21174@xanadu.blop.info>
- In-reply-to: <20100915133840.GA12529@enricozini.org>
- References: <20100914085346.GA9209@upsilon.cc> <20100915030857.GA1280@upsilon.cc> <20100915072659.GA11462@xanadu.blop.info> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20100915124056.GB18338@xanadu.blop.info> <20100915133840.GA12529@enricozini.org>
On 15/09/10 at 15:38 +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 02:40:56PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > So, you say that both old and newer DDs sometimes lack packaging skills.
> > This sounds like an acknowledgement of the failure of T&S, and the NM
> > process in general, to make sure that DDs have the necessary skills?
> Please, as requested at the start of the thread, let's stick to the
> point of this specific GR and not turn this into a broad discussion
> about NM.
> I appreciate you have lots of strong opinions about the NM process,
> although your understanding of it as has become nowadays might not be
> fully up to date. If you feel compelled to start a broad discussion
> about NM now, please feel free to do so on firstname.lastname@example.org.
Well, I'm mainly puzzled by the claim that "having something like T&S
drop away entirely will be near death". You are correct, this is not the
right time for a broad NM discussion.