| 1 |
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:12:17 -0400 |
| 2 |
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> We have not implemented any policy at the instruction of anyone. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> We have not implemented any policy under the threat of removal of |
| 7 |
> services. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I'm pleased to hear that. To be honest I assumed that was exactly what |
| 10 |
had happened, as it would reasonably explain the council's panicked |
| 11 |
response. Being a pragmatist it would seem that obeying a sponsor in |
| 12 |
that situation would be the only option available to the council in the |
| 13 |
short term. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> There was a lot of ambiguity, and it was done on purpose. Nearly |
| 16 |
> every one of our sponsors have mentioned disapproval in the constant |
| 17 |
> bad press Gentoo has been getting. Pretty much anything else they |
| 18 |
> said was in confidence, but at no point did anyone claim that any |
| 19 |
> policy should be made/updated/whatever or some action would/wouldn't |
| 20 |
> be taken. Instead, the Council decided to take action *on our own* |
| 21 |
> based on what we perceived to be a possible threat to our continued |
| 22 |
> valued relationships with *all* of our sponsors. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I don't really want to dissect your email line by line, but I feel I |
| 25 |
would struggle to think of anything a sponsor could say to the |
| 26 |
council that they felt they couldn't say to the rest of us. I'm happy |
| 27 |
however to be kept in my current state of ignorance, as it certainly |
| 28 |
would not be appropriate for any council member to reveal information or |
| 29 |
documents given to them, in confidence, to anyone else. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> Then you probably should have talked to me, huh? If something was |
| 32 |
> spoken in confidence to the Council, it would mean all of us. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Quite frankly, if you're going to try to use something that I said as |
| 35 |
> some form of "proof" of something and it is ambiguous, you could at |
| 36 |
> least have the courtesy to contact me. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Well, the last time I spoke to you was about your behaviour towards |
| 39 |
jaervosz, and you said I "was reading too much into" what you had |
| 40 |
written, that you didn't represent the council, posting on gentoo-dev |
| 41 |
made you sick, that my responses to you were partly responsible for |
| 42 |
fostering a "culture of mistrust and hostility within gentoo" and that |
| 43 |
you were "wasting ... everyone's time trying to ... rectify [your] |
| 44 |
shortcomings." And then you announced that you were not going to post on |
| 45 |
that thread anymore. Do you think that made you approachable, by me, |
| 46 |
on this matter? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> There's no conspiracy. Nobody told us to do anything, other than the |
| 49 |
> PR person, whose advice was requested by us. Anything else is |
| 50 |
> bullshit or conjecture. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
While I still don't understand your reasoning in making an intentionally |
| 53 |
ambiguous statement about the council's motives, I also don't really |
| 54 |
care to understand. Assuming you are speaking on behalf of the |
| 55 |
council in this instance, I'm happy to accept that your ongoing |
| 56 |
implementation of the CoC is an honest mistake, and not one forced upon |
| 57 |
you as the result of some ultimatum, as I inferred from your |
| 58 |
conversation with tove. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Your reply has certainly allayed the specific fears I expressed in my |
| 61 |
previous email, but it looks like you haven't convinced everyone yet: |
| 62 |
http://tsunam.org/2007/03/26/destoying-things-again/. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Regards, |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
-- |
| 67 |
Richard Brown |
Archives