| 1 |
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 07:39:35AM -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote: |
| 2 |
> Let me see if I understand the council's reasoning... |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> If dev A gets retired by devrel for insufficient reasons(what those |
| 5 |
> reasons are are irrelevant to this discussion), and his behaviour does |
| 6 |
> not change after his retirement(as he never had wrong behaviour), then |
| 7 |
> dev A's appeal is rejected? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Now, some may say that this is the reason Council reviewed the |
| 10 |
> evidence(did that really happen?). To prove my point, I'd like to ask |
| 11 |
> the council(and anyone else interested in devrel/council policy) |
| 12 |
> what reasons it found, looking through the evidence |
| 13 |
> provided, that any of the three developers were a security risk, I |
| 14 |
> certainly didn't see any. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Needless to say, I'm very disappointed in this decision. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Please keep discussion on gentoo-project. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Regards, |
| 22 |
> Thomas |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
To Clear up confusion expressed by at least one person, my Mail wasn't just about |
| 25 |
myself being confused about the wording of the announcement email. It |
| 26 |
was about my frustration at the Council's decision because their |
| 27 |
supposed procedure for appeals didn't happen in this case. In |
| 28 |
Philantrop's case at least, his behaviour since the retirement has been |
| 29 |
almost perfect(a devrel member even asserted this), yet his appeal was |
| 30 |
rejected. |
Archives