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

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 07:39 Sat 23 Aug     , Thomas Anderson wrote:
> 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?

Let's start at the beginning of what you've said here. First, you claim 
the reasons are insufficient. If the lead of devrel and all 7 council 
members disagree with that, you might want to reset your idea of what 
levels of abuse are acceptable in Gentoo.

Second, we apparently failed to make it clear enough for non-English 
natives exactly how this worked. There are basically 3 possible 
positions to have on anything:

1. Clear belief that an issue should be approved
2. Clear belief that an issue should be denied
3. Ambiguous: based on the observed evidence, it could go either way.

The description of which times we would go with the original decision is 
to explain what happens under scenario 3 above. This applies to not just 
devrel but to any team or person within Gentoo making a decision that 
gets appealed. If there's not a good enough reason (in our judgment) to 
change the original decision, we leave it.

> 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.

I found no good reason to reverse any of the decisions. The closest 
thing I saw was some ambiguity, and that is specifically what we decided 
to defer to devrel on as I described above.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com