1 |
We've made a decision on the appeals of the mandatory retirements of |
2 |
Stephen Bennet (spb), Richard Brown (rbrown), and Wulf Krueger |
3 |
(philantrop) from Gentoo. To help you understand our decision, here is |
4 |
the framework we used for it: |
5 |
|
6 |
Unless given compelling reason to believe otherwise, we accept the |
7 |
original decision. With that in mind, we considered whether we had |
8 |
compelling reason that someone should not be retired and the decision |
9 |
should be reversed. One example of a compelling reason for reversing |
10 |
this decision would be a clear change in attitude since being retired. |
11 |
As part of this review, we went through all of the logs and other |
12 |
documentation that was used as evidence for the mandatory retirements. |
13 |
We greatly value devrel's judgment, because they are the experts on this |
14 |
type of matter and we are just overseeing them. |
15 |
|
16 |
With that in mind, we have unanimously decided to let the previous |
17 |
decision by devrel stand in all three cases. All of the appeals have |
18 |
been rejected. |
19 |
|
20 |
We wanted to ensure that all of them would hear about this privately and |
21 |
directly from us rather than from someone else, so we've waited an |
22 |
additional 2 weeks since notifying them about our decision. |
23 |
|
24 |
Should the retired developers so desire, they are welcome to continue |
25 |
participating in and contributing to Gentoo as any other user would, so |
26 |
long as they abide by the CoC as it is enforced by userrel. It is at devrel's |
27 |
discretion whether to accept a new developer application at any point in |
28 |
the future. |
29 |
|
30 |
Thank you all for your patience while we came to our decision, |
31 |
|
32 |
Mark, on behalf of the Gentoo council |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Mark Loeser |
36 |
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
37 |
email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com |
38 |
web - http://www.halcy0n.com |