Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08

[Tom Wijsman]

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:48:33 +0000
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:

> Tom Wijsman:
> > On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:01:56 +0000
> > hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
> >
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA512
> >>
> >> Tom Wijsman:
> >>>> Is this what I can expect from sticking around in Gentoo?
> >>>
> >>> When people (yes, multiple) resort to reverting commits and/or
> >>> filing ComRel bugs instead of appropriate discussion and
> >>> escalation ... yes.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, this does not conform with CoC. QA members don't have a special
> >> right to be insulting on a non-technical level, even if people
> >> don't follow their policies.
> >
> > Alexander talks about expectation, not about conformity; but if
> > multiple people resort to reverting commits, or don't do
> > appropriate discussion, that would indeed not be conform with CoC
> > as it is quite disrespectful.
> >
> >> I am used to rude/blunt language and often prefer it over other
> >> forms... but there is a line when it becomes random abusive
> >> language.
> >
> > +1 Note that we're not disagreeing here.
>
> So you are saying we all can expect abusive language from QA members
> in the case of someone not respecting some policy?

To be clear; for QA members, I hope they would not act as such, but
I cannot guarantee that for every individual in and outside the QA team.

> That's a weird statement.

Only when you interpret expectations as actions that'll happen; but for
it to happen, people need to go really far, that's where common sense,
policy, other QA members, ComRel and Council come in to draw the line.

> I am not sure if you really meant it... that's why I am asking.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@g.o
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D