1 |
> > > Ferris McCormick wrote: |
2 |
> > > they get to devrel because you ensured there would be no one to |
3 |
> > > catch them --- you are the one who wanted to kill off the |
4 |
> > > proctors, after all. |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
7 |
> > ...and the finger-pointing starts... Bravo! |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Ferris McCormick wrote: |
10 |
> To the extent you see this as a personal attack, I apologize. |
11 |
> I never intended it as such. I was only recalling your email |
12 |
> from 5 June |
13 |
|
14 |
Fmccor, your comment about wolf 'being the one who wanted to kill off the |
15 |
proctors' really served no purpose to the point; that being that the |
16 |
proctors are no more and your personal curiosity as to how the CoC should |
17 |
now be enforced. Adding no benefit to the point makes your comments useless |
18 |
information. Your wording ('you ensured' and 'you are the one') only |
19 |
furthers to make it useless information and appear very personal. 'You' |
20 |
versus 'council' for example. You may honestly not intend it as such but |
21 |
please be aware that it is easily interpreted that way when a simple change |
22 |
of wording might have avoided this. |
23 |
|
24 |
Wolf31o2 is not the council member who called to vote to disband the |
25 |
proctors, and he is only one of five council members who voted to disband |
26 |
the proctors. I myself had private conversations with council members OTHER |
27 |
than wolf31o2 who had expressed the desire to drop the proctor project. The |
28 |
combination of those things justifies me simply stating that your statement |
29 |
is incorrect. Sure he sent that lovely email that you provided us all; |
30 |
doesn't mean much though as he's not the only one who said those things. He |
31 |
took a stance, as a council member should do, I mean isnt that why we have |
32 |
council? And he is one person who can contribute but not solely rule, isnt |
33 |
that why we have several council members instead of just one person? Quit |
34 |
giving him 'credit' for the entire thing. |
35 |
|
36 |
> Ferris McCormick wrote: |
37 |
> As for filing a devrel complaint, do so if you must. But as |
38 |
> you know, policy strongly suggests you should talk to me |
39 |
> first so we can figure out where the miscommunication is. We |
40 |
> also might discuss why you chose to hang an attack on devrel |
41 |
> onto my rather innocuous musings. |
42 |
|
43 |
You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which quite |
44 |
frankly should be kept off this mailing list. His negative experiences |
45 |
throughout all of 2007 with Conflict Resolution and consequently Developer |
46 |
Relations justify any of your alleged 'attacks on devrel.' Let's take this |
47 |
discussion elsewhere. |
48 |
And a final note, you have had to justify your 'innocuous musings' a few |
49 |
times recently, on this list and other Gentoo lists. Perhaps that could be a |
50 |
sign that you should mull over and validate those musings yourself before |
51 |
throwing them at the rest of us. Might cause fewer 'misunderstandings' with |
52 |
regards to your statements. |
53 |
|
54 |
Kind regards, |
55 |
Christina Fullam |
56 |
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations |
57 |
|
58 |
|
59 |
-- |
60 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |