From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Feb 13 21:17:50 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mail.utexas.edu (wb2-a.mail.utexas.edu [128.83.126.136]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1BEC24A91 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:17:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 7577 invoked by uid 0); 14 Feb 2000 05:17:48 -0000 Received: from dial-51-34.ots.utexas.edu (HELO nomad.dataplex.net) (128.83.113.130) by umbs-smtp-2 with SMTP; 14 Feb 2000 05:17:48 -0000 From: Richard Wackerbarth To: "David O'Brien" Subject: Re: /usr/ports/ too big? Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:10:00 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG References: <00021319291002.06543@nomad.dataplex.net> <20000213200645.A17462@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20000213200645.A17462@dragon.nuxi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00021323153409.06543@nomad.dataplex.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 06:18:02PM -0600, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > > Quite likely because this arena is too obscure and cluttered with (to them) > > extraneous material. Of course, YOU object to it being discussed in forums > > where they are more likely to congregate. > > NO! The Handbook which *clearly* states Typical "backroom politics" strategy -- Advertise the "public" meeting only in the hall outside the executive washroom Then come forward with your report and truthfully state that "no one objected" And you are ignoring the fact that I advocate this strategy beyond the ports. Ports just happens to be the better place to demonstrate and refine the idea. -- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@Dataplex.NET To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message