1 |
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 08:11:41PM -0400, Mark Loeser wrote: |
2 |
> We've made a decision on the appeals of the mandatory retirements of |
3 |
> Stephen Bennet (spb), Richard Brown (rbrown), and Wulf Krueger |
4 |
> (philantrop) from Gentoo. To help you understand our decision, here is |
5 |
> the framework we used for it: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Unless given compelling reason to believe otherwise, we accept the |
8 |
> original decision. With that in mind, we considered whether we had |
9 |
> compelling reason that someone should not be retired and the decision |
10 |
> should be reversed. One example of a compelling reason for reversing |
11 |
> this decision would be a clear change in attitude since being retired. |
12 |
> As part of this review, we went through all of the logs and other |
13 |
> documentation that was used as evidence for the mandatory retirements. |
14 |
> We greatly value devrel's judgment, because they are the experts on this |
15 |
> type of matter and we are just overseeing them. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> With that in mind, we have unanimously decided to let the previous |
18 |
> decision by devrel stand in all three cases. All of the appeals have |
19 |
> been rejected. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> We wanted to ensure that all of them would hear about this privately and |
22 |
> directly from us rather than from someone else, so we've waited an |
23 |
> additional 2 weeks since notifying them about our decision. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Should the retired developers so desire, they are welcome to continue |
26 |
> participating in and contributing to Gentoo as any other user would, so |
27 |
> long as they abide by the CoC as it is enforced by userrel. It is at devrel's |
28 |
> discretion whether to accept a new developer application at any point in |
29 |
> the future. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Thank you all for your patience while we came to our decision, |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Mark, on behalf of the Gentoo council |
34 |
> |
35 |
> -- |
36 |
> Mark Loeser |
37 |
> email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
38 |
> email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com |
39 |
> web - http://www.halcy0n.com |
40 |
|
41 |
Let me see if I understand the council's reasoning... |
42 |
|
43 |
If dev A gets retired by devrel for insufficient reasons(what those |
44 |
reasons are are irrelevant to this discussion), and his behaviour does |
45 |
not change after his retirement(as he never had wrong behaviour), then |
46 |
dev A's appeal is rejected? |
47 |
|
48 |
Now, some may say that this is the reason Council reviewed the |
49 |
evidence(did that really happen?). To prove my point, I'd like to ask |
50 |
the council(and anyone else interested in devrel/council policy) |
51 |
what reasons it found, looking through the evidence |
52 |
provided, that any of the three developers were a security risk, I |
53 |
certainly didn't see any. |
54 |
|
55 |
Needless to say, I'm very disappointed in this decision. |
56 |
|
57 |
Please keep discussion on gentoo-project. |
58 |
|
59 |
|
60 |
Regards, |
61 |
Thomas |