Re: Proposal of new "admin" pseudo BTS package
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Proposal of new "admin" pseudo BTS package
- From: Colin Watson <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 02:21:39 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20041006012139.GA8413@riva.ucam.org>
- Mail-followup-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <20040928223935.GA12942@kobal.mnemosyne-consulting.com>
- References: <email@example.com> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20040924223256.GV2739@archimedes.ucr.edu> <20040928124600.GF24404@riva.ucam.org> <20040928223935.GA12942@kobal.mnemosyne-consulting.com>
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 10:39:35PM +0000, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 01:46:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 03:32:56PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > In this case, wouldn't making the appropriate admin(s) the owner of
> > > the pseudo package make it so that they wouldn't have to check the bts
> > > pseudo package specifically?
> > Sure, but it still absolutely requires their consent.
> Who have a demonstrated and persistant lack of interest in anything so
> openly reviewable, according to past actions, statements made in this
> thread, and other observations.
Then that is their prerogative.
Colin Watson [email@example.com]