Absolutely agree, and I'm very thankful + glad, that You're doing it (and some others, too).

My comment about "who should be thanked" for current problems was corresponding to situation, that lead to last release (and hassle it made with bb-power). As You're aware, bb-power was seens as candidate for CSSU for at least a year (in fact, bb-power is consequently maintained for *longer* than CSSU...), yet, some were vocally advocating against it, without any reasonable rationale - mostly due to ideological reasons, but - it seems to me, that it was about power in name, mostly

Followers of busybox-power thread are perfectly aware, "who and why" was opting against bb-p, claiming that it will be never part of CSSU. It's sad, that CSSU maintainers were so influenced by it, without carrying for meritocratic value of package in question.

This lead to situation we have here now, and, sadly, without Your help (and iDont's patience), it would be still the case, for further releases. So, in this case, fixing decisions were made due to authority of personal(s) - again, meritocratic value of package itself, wasn't enough. It saddens me (despite fact, that outcome is positive, after all).

While I totally appreciate effort put into CSSU and respect it maintainers/contributors for all the work, I hope that bb-power case will be a kind of lesson. Last half of a year months were prime example, where CSSU maintainership [n]*shouldn't*[/b] be going, and again, I'm very glad it is changing. Your famous post in cssu-thumb thread seems to indicate, that we're also agreeing, that some things were wrong/undefined, in the past months.
---

So, I think that we're agreeing totally - misunderstanding raised, because I was referring to things prior the latest update (which, as we know, wasn't prepared a day before release - it was effect of months worth of effort). So, no problem here (peace, love, and pink sweet flovers, instead ).

/Estel