1 |
Chrissy Fullam wrote: |
2 |
>> Ferris McCormick wrote: |
3 |
>> With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors |
4 |
>> anymore to enforce the CoC. Thus, things we would expect the |
5 |
>> proctors to catch and handle under CoC get sent to devrel |
6 |
>> instead. All I am doing is wondering out loud (now that CoC |
7 |
>> is coming alive again) if we should start processing these |
8 |
>> under CoC rules. I'm asking Council because CoC belongs to |
9 |
>> Council, but I do not expect a ruling, just perhaps an |
10 |
>> interesting discussion. See, these things can't be caught |
11 |
>> before they get to devrel because you ensured there would be |
12 |
>> no one to catch them --- you are the one who wanted to kill |
13 |
>> off the proctors, after all. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Please lay off the personal attacks here; it's getting beyond ridiculous. |
16 |
|
17 |
I'm sorry that really did not read like a personal attack. I have zero idea |
18 |
what the personal history between the parties is, but from what I have read |
19 |
on this list and project, Mr McCormick has only ever raised perfectly valid |
20 |
questions in a wholly appropriate manner. |
21 |
|
22 |
There are many examples of others using far more personal and frankly |
23 |
abusive comments which are never remarked on. Combined with the apparently |
24 |
partisan manner with which this is being dealt (devrel complaint and the |
25 |
head of devrel posting quite formal-sounding comments [in the other |
26 |
sub-thread] which simply sound threatening) one is left with an impression |
27 |
of a cliquey, factionalised dev-group, and tbh a rather bad taste in the |
28 |
mouth. |
29 |
|
30 |
> Wolf31o2 is not the only council member who wanted to 'kill off the |
31 |
> proctors', see below: |
32 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070712-summary.txt |
33 |
> - Kingtaco wanted a vote to cancel the proctors. robbat2 wanted them to |
34 |
> just |
35 |
> die quietly if no material was forthcoming. Others called for a definate |
36 |
> stand rather than the "die quietly". All 5 attending council members |
37 |
> voted in favour of dropping the proctors. |
38 |
> Seems to me that every council member in attendance decided they wanted to |
39 |
> 'kill off the proctors.' |
40 |
> |
41 |
Without getting into that whole row, I must point out that meeting was a |
42 |
month after the "lovely email" you referred to, which came out of nowhere. |
43 |
(No prior discussion about any of the concerns had been raised with the |
44 |
proctors team.) Speculation as to the motives of the Council is moot: the |
45 |
consensus for proctors had been thrashed out on this list over a period of |
46 |
several months. |
47 |
|
48 |
Now we will have proctors by another name, only drawn from a far smaller |
49 |
pool much closer to the Council, with the remit confined to this list and |
50 |
no "useless warnings" only immediate action. I sincerely hope that works. |
51 |
|
52 |
[Please note followup] |
53 |
|
54 |
|
55 |
-- |
56 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |