The general response I got to that post was either no response at all, talking
behind my back about what what a bad person I am (at least that's what others
told me) or - and this was the most concerning response for me - "You shouldn't
say things like that." And that response came multiple times from very different
GNOME contributors. So the lesson I learned back then is that rule number 1
about the GNOME project is that you don't talk about the GNOME project.
Fwiw, I still don't think Emily should characterize me as "break[ing] API’s at
random" and "purposefully ensuring that [..] themes cease to work", but I think
she has all the right in the world to do that as long as I get the right to use
my choice words to answer to that. I'd rather have her calling me that than
nobody saying anything at all.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME#cite_note-6
> I can understand that their intentions are noble, but the last time someone
> took their chances we ended up with:
>
Fun fact: I didn't know I ended up on Wikipedia (Someone should file a bug
against Wordpress' pingback feature). Isn't it discouraged to cite blogs on
Wikipedia? [1] :)
Benjamin
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources
_______________________________________________
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list