[gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Decision on recent developer retirements

[Thomas Anderson]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 08:11:41PM -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
> We've made a decision on the appeals of the mandatory retirements of
> Stephen Bennet (spb), Richard Brown (rbrown), and Wulf Krueger
> (philantrop) from Gentoo. To help you understand our decision, here is
> the framework we used for it:
>
> Unless given compelling reason to believe otherwise, we accept the
> original decision. With that in mind, we considered whether we had
> compelling reason that someone should not be retired and the decision
> should be reversed. One example of a compelling reason for reversing
> this decision would be a clear change in attitude since being retired.
> As part of this review, we went through all of the logs and other
> documentation that was used as evidence for the mandatory retirements.
> We greatly value devrel's judgment, because they are the experts on this
> type of matter and we are just overseeing them.
>
> With that in mind, we have unanimously decided to let the previous
> decision by devrel stand in all three cases.  All of the appeals have
> been rejected.
>
> We wanted to ensure that all of them would hear about this privately and
> directly from us rather than from someone else, so we've waited an
> additional 2 weeks since notifying them about our decision.
>
> Should the retired developers so desire, they are welcome to continue
> participating in and contributing to Gentoo as any other user would, so
> long as they abide by the CoC as it is enforced by userrel. It is at devrel's
> discretion whether to accept a new developer application at any point in
> the future.
>
> Thank you all for your patience while we came to our decision,
>
> Mark, on behalf of the Gentoo council
>
> --
> Mark Loeser
> email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
> email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
> web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com

Let me see if I understand the council's reasoning...

If dev A gets retired by devrel for insufficient reasons(what those
reasons are are irrelevant to this discussion), and his behaviour does
not change after his retirement(as he never had wrong behaviour), then
dev A's appeal is rejected?

Now, some may say that this is the reason Council reviewed the
evidence(did that really happen?). To prove my point, I'd like to ask
the council(and anyone else interested in devrel/council policy)
what reasons it found, looking through the evidence
provided, that any of the three developers were a security risk, I
certainly didn't see any. 

Needless to say, I'm very disappointed in this decision.

Please keep discussion on gentoo-project.


Regards,
Thomas