Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] RE: Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:33:38
Message-Id: fm9jeo$m3d$1@ger.gmane.org
In Reply to: RE: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting by Chrissy Fullam
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RE: Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>