Reasons for hall monitoring

[Brian Pepple]

On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 00:26 +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 05:46:21PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
> > 
> > Normally, I'd be against it killing a thread, but the thread that
> > started this discussion had already been done awhile back and this new
> > thread added *nothing* new to the discussion. Frankly, it was more
> 
> This all is your subjective opinion. There is not objective and
> unbiased way how evaluate any discussion, it's unmeasurable. That's
> the reason why Hall Monitor Policy is nonsense.

Please enlighten me then on what new information was added to this
thread that wasn't in the prior thread that warranted keeping it alive?

Later,
/B
-- 
Brian Pepple <bpepple at fedoraproject.org>

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B  CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100506/c6e9a513/attachment.bin