1 |
2011/6/11 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>: |
2 |
> On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
3 |
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
4 |
>> > > So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect |
5 |
>> > > him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, |
6 |
>> > > but still I think that this is not a sane situation. |
7 |
>> > |
8 |
>> > it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus |
9 |
>> > cement an echo chamber |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already |
12 |
>> happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been |
13 |
>> removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing |
14 |
>> with the Council? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> how is disagreeing with a Council decision valid grounds either ? punting |
17 |
> people because they disagree with any group isn't really valid. |
18 |
> -mike |
19 |
|
20 |
a user POV: |
21 |
|
22 |
If you are in the role of enforcing decision of the council and with |
23 |
"disagreeing" you mean acting versus their decision yes it's a very |
24 |
much valid ground. |
25 |
|
26 |
In real life if you are a policeman and disagree with politicians you |
27 |
must anyway enforce their laws or you're jailed. |
28 |
|
29 |
Anyway maybe the whole QA should resign (you too Diego) and election |
30 |
done again, seem the more correct thing at this point |