1 |
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 17:18 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:13:45 -0400 |
3 |
> Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > Uh - perhaps we should save our zealotry for constitutions for some |
5 |
> > time when the Council is actually misbehaving? This really seems |
6 |
> > like a tempest in a teapot. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > If the council decided to start holding meetings in private, denied |
9 |
> > any forum for dissent, began booting people merely for disagreeing, |
10 |
> > and began taking the distro in a direction most devs don't like then |
11 |
> > I'd be all for having a gentoo insurrection. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Oh, I do hope that was said with irony. Funnily enough, the Council |
14 |
> holding meetings in private (ask them about their secret channel on |
15 |
> oftc and their meetings with musikc), denying dissent and booting people |
16 |
> arbitrarily is exactly what lead to them holding the second meeting |
17 |
> that started this discussion. |
18 |
|
19 |
Another very good point. IMHO the CoC falls under the GSC which the |
20 |
trustees/foundation enforces not the council. So they topic at hand for |
21 |
the current council is not of technical nature and thus should not be on |
22 |
their plate. Which the subsequent meeting of a topic/subject that should |
23 |
not fall to them. |
24 |
|
25 |
It's no wonder a technical council, did not show up to a meeting to |
26 |
discuss social issues. Duh ;) Part of the reason I dislike punishment |
27 |
for this so much. This was not a technical meeting, where a major |
28 |
technical decision lie on the table going unresolved. |
29 |
|
30 |
Has this missed meeting effected Gentoo's technical progress in any way |
31 |
shape or form. Other than all of us wasting allot of time discussing BS |
32 |
stuff rather than writing code and/or improving Gentoo technically. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
36 |
amd64/Java/Trustees |
37 |
Gentoo Foundation |