| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA512 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 17/06/2011 03:30 πμ, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Monday, June 13, 2011 19:09:06 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On 11-06-2011 20:48, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 9 |
>>>>>> So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect |
| 10 |
>>>>>> him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, |
| 11 |
>>>>>> but still I think that this is not a sane situation. |
| 12 |
>>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>>> it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus |
| 14 |
>>>>> cement an echo chamber |
| 15 |
>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already |
| 17 |
>>>> happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been |
| 18 |
>>>> removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing |
| 19 |
>>>> with the Council? |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>> how is disagreeing with a Council decision valid grounds either ? |
| 22 |
>>> punting people because they disagree with any group isn't really valid. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> It was not about disagreeing with Council but actively going against an |
| 25 |
>> approved policy when the team is responsible for enforcing policies in |
| 26 |
>> the tree. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> This is why in my proposal for the review of GLEP 48 I added a point |
| 29 |
>> stating that acting against established policies would constitute ground |
| 30 |
>> to be removed from the team. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> that isnt what Ciaran said, and what you describe no one has shown me doing. |
| 33 |
> thus the only logical conclusions that one can draw from this: |
| 34 |
> - Diego mistakenly removed me without knowing all the facts |
| 35 |
> or |
| 36 |
> - i was removed for purely voicing disagreement |
| 37 |
> -mike |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
This is exactly what I've trying to explain in many many e-mails. You |
| 40 |
and Samuli agreed to follow the policy. Not removing old packages does |
| 41 |
*NOT* violate the policy. I am not sure why this is so hard for someone |
| 42 |
to understand the difference. This is reason why I left as well. Because |
| 43 |
you were removed with no proof of policy violation. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
- -- |
| 46 |
Regards, |
| 47 |
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 |
| 48 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 49 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJN+xbjAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCDBcQAJNSH6E4eiB4GFt7nSWkT1Ou |
| 52 |
u9XbcaANAOBHNgt0Ydg/QJF2w0ON8vo/hk8y2gvxOOKXlukT21teDAQ4A7BTiRHa |
| 53 |
zz7m51TXyTXAjBUavam6x9KKgdTTnlHkRpVMCxh6HHG1K8n7qHFrswMxr41V8cD6 |
| 54 |
oZ4sP0UZPXKA7qslDv44MGF7gPQyUcCCKAYVOBOCWtNOr9LABxfSQnX/s6ZtSEHy |
| 55 |
uvQ8FD4cL/BYN83NnoB+fUUqzFwiyz1xlZDD3QrvhlsYNi3QSM+Zp6t2X08eWci5 |
| 56 |
ScSLUqB5kAZVZH9SzxNjpGeZu95A5hr0w6goCd6dxUqdUne/2k99HwPp876PRiq1 |
| 57 |
jvcRMEHvvKQdVN8Tdqs8fiSxVZBcBlG4N9ief6FyAKrNgcJ8aaLAPb9CeuqWcGnE |
| 58 |
mmWrtql5QJR3n5AENNOWUzG41RfBRf6QqoF9WYLDuIEwXOfcE2mpWmtL473fXtUK |
| 59 |
8PsLSZ9ZXYVDhGxAAai1ZFCgTjbzCv635V0nXpZm2w6PBsDpuKRXtjUJCRbhoXVP |
| 60 |
lFBrDLDOyI/qFf7PfYQfi3nwUucmZIJTm3g+hSt1nuE9nvx2qjdx9FzN79DqattC |
| 61 |
RfiZQJFxXc9baa1qz0yt1TZHmmbFmUuX/moIxSSk0XbzYhEl5uJUuJeh/b8MGjeT |
| 62 |
18nIZ+fNSEaHwyc/IHSk |
| 63 |
=0nlz |
| 64 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives