| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Josh Sled wrote: |
| 5 |
> Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> writes: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> got out of hand. Perhaps the goal was laudable, but the methods were |
| 8 |
>> not? (As an aside, I didn't realize that Roy's e-mail was supposed to |
| 9 |
>> be a proctor directive.) Or are people really looking for the proctors |
| 10 |
>> to get involved only when behavior is particularly egregious? Is there |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I find it disappointing (maybe "telling", if one is less charitable) that the |
| 13 |
> Proctors never censured the original poster for either the tone of the |
| 14 |
> message, nor the personal invective it contained, and still haven't. I'd |
| 15 |
> imagine clear violations of the CoC to result in at least a public |
| 16 |
> admonishment and warning. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
The proctors have no power now, thanks to Chris publicly stabbing them |
| 19 |
in the back after they tried to assert some of their powers - they |
| 20 |
requested that no one respond to the thread for 24 hours, and people |
| 21 |
couldn't respect that simple request - and now with what Chris said, it |
| 22 |
just fuels the flames due to Council "backing" them - as Ciaran has |
| 23 |
already asserted in a mail earlier in the thread. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Great job Chris, way to stick it to them. |
| 26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) |
| 28 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
iD8DBQFGZvmA1c+EtXTHkJcRAhgZAJ92BOAq8cd+Tp1cxXSUC8sNvw5eUwCfeOeF |
| 31 |
Kh4cZO7lgVAleBC5s20zZmY= |
| 32 |
=0PzG |
| 33 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives