[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?


Jorge/aka Koki

Other related posts: