[haiku] Re: Japanese Haiku distribution "Basho" R1/Alpha 1 released
- From: "Jorge G. Mare" <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:42:20
Hey Scott,
scott mc wrote on Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:07:25 -0700:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Jorge G. Mare <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ryan,
> >
> > Ryan Leavengood wrote on Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:21:21 -0400:
> > > It is my opinion that something like this could be discussed more
> > > out
> > > in the open. There is nothing secret about our distro guidelines,
> > > and
> > > while I think we all appreciate the efforts of someone like SHINTA
> > > to
> > > make Haiku easier to use for Japanese users, the reality is he
> > > did
> > > not
> > > follow the distro guidelines.
> >
> > Well, the issue was brought up in this public list, and nobody said
> > anything until (I responded) today. I can't help but wonder why not
> > respond here instead of taking the dicussion to the Haiku Inc.
> > closed
> > mailing list...
> >
> >
> Just because nobody said something on the public list, don't go
> assuming
> that it wasn't being talked about amongst Haiku Inc members. Since
> we are
> located across several times zones this sometimes takes a few days to
> get
> everyone on the same page.
> We have dealt with distros that violated the distro guidelines in the
> past
> and this one will be no different. It was delayed however by us not
> knowing
> right away that it was in violation. If you look at the first few
> emails of
> the thread you'd see that. Heck Jorge was the first one to respond,
> and
> didn't point out the violation. Once it was brought to our
> attention, we
> then started a discussion of what and how to handle it. It is being
> dealt
> with, so be patient.
I did not assume anything. I just responded because the days went by
and nobody else did. Remember that the question was posted on this
public list, so a response here is what anybody would expect. If a
discussion needs to take place elsewhere, and that would take time,
that's OK. But then, it would have not been hard to send a quick &
short "it's being looked into" note. That was my whole point (in
response to Ryan).
But now I am curious: if you did not know that there was a violation
until I mentioned it today, what were you discussing then?
Regards,
Jorge/aka Koki
Other related posts:
