Re: planning 2.0?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 02:54:48AM -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
> James I don't think this is an issue here.  Arch was of Tom's design and
> Arch 2.0 is still Tom's design.  So it is great that Tom is leading the
> discussion and if Tom wants to push Arch 2.0 forward I am all for it.
> 
> I have kept tla alive, but for major advancements Tom is the best person to
> push for them and to lead the community to achieve them.  (Yes, I still keep
> tla alive.  Tla is not going anywhere but won't see any big changes either)

I understand.  Good luck to the gnuarch team. I bet you guys will do
great.

Whoever's supposed to be in charge of the website -- please email me
directly (I'm no longer on the list) about moving http://gnuarch.org off
of my machine.

Regards,
James
> 
> On 4/23/06, James Blackwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Andy has done a very good job running GnuArch. He communicates well, is
> > skilled at avoiding minefields on this list, is open to ideas from
> > everyone on the group and seeks consensus. I nominate Andy Tai to stay in
> > charge of GnuArch.
> >
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
> 
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/

-- 
My home page:   <a href="http://jblack.linuxguru.net">James Blackwell</a>
Gnupg 06357400  F-print AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFES27XilXacwY1dAARAvA8AJ9aGnPOpcQ5Y0E3e+SdwXb2jA/tkQCeOaoJ
BJc6PC29DgShqrKBNMGn9hg=
=FlYo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----