From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thomas Lord Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: Re: 23.0.60; M-( and M-) should not be bound in ESC map Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:24:05 -0700 Message-ID: <48012875.9090209@emf.net> References: <20080410154940.GB7700@muc.de> <20080410162459.GC7700@muc.de> <47FEF118.5010803@emf.net> <48000CCE.8010008@emf.net> <85abjzwrjv.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <20080412073111.GA1781@muc.de> <4800C116.7080304@emf.net> <85r6dau99o.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080805050205030605060701" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1208033020 301 80.91.229.12 (12 Apr 2008 20:43:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:43:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , rgm@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org, lekktu@gmail.com To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 12 22:44:13 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Jkma1-0005B3-Gj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:44:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JkmZN-0000gk-JP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:43:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JkmZI-0000dy-Ue for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:43:24 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JkmZH-0000by-TL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:43:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JkmZH-0000bZ-PC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:43:23 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JkmZF-000305-4s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:43:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166] helo=mx10.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JkmZE-0007zr-NQ for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:43:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JkmZB-0002zN-3W for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:43:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.42inc.com ([205.149.0.25]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (SSL 3.0:RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JkmZ2-0002wl-Ps; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:43:09 -0400 X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.5 X-TFF-CGPSA-Filter-42inc: Scanned X-42-Virus-Scanned: by 42 Antivirus -- Found to be clean. Original-Received: from [69.236.65.64] (account lord@emf.net HELO [192.168.1.64]) by mail.42inc.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.13) with ESMTPA id 27905779; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:43:03 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060808) In-Reply-To: <85r6dau99o.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:95082 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:22006 Archived-At: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080805050205030605060701 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I suspect, then, that it is still a union shop although I wouldn't doubt that some of the executives are at a different payscale and not unionized (e.g., because of their role in fundraising). Even before it was unionized (back when I was there) we all got paid scale -- which helped make for a (mostly :-) pleasant environment. -t David Kastrup wrote: > Thomas Lord writes: > > >> Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >>> Er, David, it was a joke. >>> >> No. The FSF job postings used to explicitly say: >> >> "The FSF is a union shop" or "FSF employees are unionized" >> or words to that effect. But I've asked what happened off-line >> rather than perpetuate confusion here. >> > > I'd be the wrong person to ask, never having been an employee or visitor > of the FSF and frankly not too sure about the terminology, either. So > if there is something worth asking about (and certainly my comments > don't indicate any knowledge of mine about that), you'd better ask > Richard or the FSF clerk. > > --------------080805050205030605060701 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I suspect, then, that it is still a union shop although I wouldn't
doubt that some of the executives are at a different payscale and
not unionized (e.g., because of their role in fundraising).

Even before it was unionized (back when I was there)
we all got paid scale -- which helped make for a (mostly :-)
pleasant environment.

-t


David Kastrup wrote: 
Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> writes:

  
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    
Er, David, it was a joke. 
      
No.  The FSF job postings used to explicitly say:

"The FSF is a union shop" or "FSF employees are unionized"
or words to that effect.   But I've asked what happened off-line
rather than perpetuate confusion here.
    

I'd be the wrong person to ask, never having been an employee or visitor
of the FSF and frankly not too sure about the terminology, either.  So
if there is something worth asking about (and certainly my comments
don't indicate any knowledge of mine about that), you'd better ask
Richard or the FSF clerk.

--------------080805050205030605060701--