Marko A. Jennings wrote: > On Sat, August 8, 2009 8:44 pm, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> Marko A. Jennings wrote: >>> On Sat, August 8, 2009 4:04 pm, Lanny Marcus wrote: >>>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Robert<lists07 at abbacomm.net> wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> please stop poking the bears... ;-> >>>>> >>>>> it isn't productive and many of you that are critical of CentOS and >>>>> the >>>>> people running it should just move on and go away as asked >>>> +1 How easy it is to criticize people who have put in a >>>> tremendous amount of hours, without pay, working on the CentOS >>>> project. There is always room for improvement, but the criticism from >>>> those who have not put in the hours over the past years is not >>>> deserved. >>> Lanny, >>> >>> Your statement implies that people that have not contributed to a >>> certain >>> goal cannot possibly have a good suggestion. Following that line of >>> thought, we should all shut up and let our respective governments do >>> whatever they please because most of us have not been public servants. >>> >>> And even if the suggestion (or criticism, as lots of suggestions have >>> been >>> labeled as of lately) is not valid, there are kinder and more polite >>> ways >>> of responding to them than those we have experienced in this thread. >>> >>> Marko >>> >>> Following that line of thought, we should all shut up and let our >>> respective governments do whatever >> CentOS is not a government or a Democracy ... it was not designed to be. >> It is a product that we produce for people to use or not use. >> >> They get to choose to participate in the mailing lists, the forums, etc.> > >> They get to choose to donate money or servers or bandwidth to the project. >> >> They do NOT get to tell us what to build, when to build it, how to use >> donated resources, etc. Just like I don't get to login to your servers >> and do what I want when you use CentOS. > > Where exactly have I said, or even implied that? All I have tried to > convey is that when people offer suggestions, they ought to be considered > and answered in a polite manner. As I said before, it's not what is being > said, but rather how. > > Do we agree on this? If you mean that I can be an arrogant SOB sometimes, then YES, we (and my wife) can agree. I also can certainly try to be nicer, yes. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20090808/8ff1573e/attachment-0004.sig>