On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, R P Herrold wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, Dag Wieers wrote: >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, R P Herrold wrote: >> >>> yes -- I see no reason to re-debate their position here, as it >>> simply picks open old wounds to no good end, and have provided >>> a link to you privately. >> >> If I read their position, ... >> >> They did object [to ] the use of ... > > Dag ... 'provided privately' means just that; It is immaterial > that the link may be 'findable' -- it was intentionally NOT > repeated by me here. > > PLEASE do not do this here and now, nor in a public forum. > To go through this as you have started is to say that you are > unwilling to respect my work in defusing the situation years > ago, nor my wish now. Russ, I have no knowledge of what work you did, what it entails and what the results of it were. I don't think I was involved in any way and the secrecy and non-transparancy is a hard pill to swallow. I don't think it does any good for CentOS, the project, especially if there is an unwillingness to explain the discrepancy of what is being said (we cannot "deep link") and what is done (security advisories, bugs, ...). We end up in half-measures and confusion as a result of scare-tactics. (I cannot guarantee that the issue ends with this, but this thread will.) -- -- dag wieers, dag at centos.org, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
