Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:17:16
Message-Id: 1174929137.8207.56.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract by Richard Brown
1 On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 16:39 +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
2 > Hi vapier, thanks for pointing this out. Am I wrong to assume from your
3 > responses in this thread to ciaranm's "hypothetical" case that the
4 > current council have not implemented any policy at the instruction of an
5 > external company or organisation? Or under the threat of the withdrawal
6 > of services that company/organisation provides to us?
7
8 We have not implemented any policy at the instruction of anyone.
9
10 We have not implemented any policy under the threat of removal of
11 services.
12
13 > I certainly inferred that the council had been told do "something" or
14 > "outside parties that provide services and goods to Gentoo" would cease
15 > to "maintain" that relationship. While there is some ambiguity in what
16 > wolf31o2 said, it certainly doesn't read to me that this is a preemptive
17 > measure, especially as the first line references already having been
18 > told something in confidence.
19
20 There was a lot of ambiguity, and it was done on purpose. Nearly every
21 one of our sponsors have mentioned disapproval in the constant bad press
22 Gentoo has been getting. Pretty much anything else they said was in
23 confidence, but at no point did anyone claim that any policy should be
24 made/updated/whatever or some action would/wouldn't be taken. Instead,
25 the Council decided to take action *on our own* based on what we
26 perceived to be a possible threat to our continued valued relationships
27 with *all* of our sponsors.
28
29 Again, nobody asked us to do *anything* and nobody made any threats of
30 any kind. This was *entirely* a preemptive measure. It was actually
31 done more at the counsel of some professional PR people which we have
32 been speaking with about our image. This person's advice was to move on
33 these perceived issues quickly and decisively, which is exactly what we
34 did.
35
36 > I admit I haven't asked wolf31o2 about this, but then he implied he was
37 > forbidden from discussing it further. Perhaps you have not been so
38 > constrained by an outside organisation?
39
40 Then you probably should have talked to me, huh? If something was
41 spoken in confidence to the Council, it would mean all of us.
42
43 Quite frankly, if you're going to try to use something that I said as
44 some form of "proof" of something and it is ambiguous, you could at
45 least have the courtesy to contact me.
46
47 There's no conspiracy. Nobody told us to do anything, other than the PR
48 person, whose advice was requested by us. Anything else is bullshit or
49 conjecture. Now, can we get on to our regularly scheduled development
50 and leave this non-development banter where it is more appropriate?
51
52 --
53 Chris Gianelloni
54 Release Engineering Strategic Lead
55 Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
56 Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
57 Gentoo Foundation

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract Richard Brown <rbrown@g.o>