On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 05:36:00PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > It would not matter if I felt @RH's were acting neutrally and unbiased. Neutral to what? Was there any topic where the community would say left and RH said right? > The opposite applies. Where? I think you are upset because some thing were a bit bumpy. And you looked at the leaders of the respective groups and saw @redhat.com there. There is no intention in Red Hat to sabotage Fedora, bigger changes have their cost and things break. Would it make any difference if the people in charge had no Red Hat affiliation? The people would probably make the same choices but w/o having a job that allows them to dedicate themselves to fix things, you would have seen much more broken bits and for a longer time. In a nutshell: Yes, the merger has some troubles - yes, it was expected due to the amount of changes involved. And no, Red Hat does not break Fedora on purpose. And finally: Who do you think was making pressure to finally do the merger? Yes, it was the community and Red Hat opened up all old Core structures to make it more community-like. And attacking Red Hat for doing that seems bizarre. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpLXEjMu8J8C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
