On Thu, 16.10.08 12:28, Jon Ciesla (limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > I don't think using smelly worlds like that one and forgetting about their > > history would be good for a formalized workflow like ours in > > Fedora. I mean, we are supposed to be democratic with all our > > board elections and stuff. But, uh, using Nazi terminology is not a > > good way to promote that. > > > > Or, if we have "Überpackagers", maybe it's time to rename normal > > packagers to "Unterpackagers"? That would fit awfully well into our > > pursuit for world domination, wouldn't it? > > Point taken, but in all honesty, this has been being bandied about for > awhile. Wouldn't have been more expedient to contribute to the naming > discussion before extensive infrastructure changes we made? > > I mean, I agree with you to some extent, but the goat has already run off > with the burrito, so to speak. Neither your hungry goat nor the fact that I don't follow all and very single discussion on the fedora MLs changes that "Überpackager" is a pretty bad choice of words. I noticed the adoption of this term for the first time a week or two ago when I had to log into FAS and noticed I had become an Überpackager. And, oh, god, with my blonde hair and blue eyes it felt so deserved... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553 http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
