Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Chrissy Fullam <musikc@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: RE: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:44:05
Message-Id: 65DEF511CD88449DAC9B1252FDF49E32@draco2
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting by Ferris McCormick
1 > Ferris McCormick wrote:
2 > With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors
3 > anymore to enforce the CoC. Thus, things we would expect the
4 > proctors to catch and handle under CoC get sent to devrel
5 > instead. All I am doing is wondering out loud (now that CoC
6 > is coming alive again) if we should start processing these
7 > under CoC rules. I'm asking Council because CoC belongs to
8 > Council, but I do not expect a ruling, just perhaps an
9 > interesting discussion. See, these things can't be caught
10 > before they get to devrel because you ensured there would be
11 > no one to catch them --- you are the one who wanted to kill
12 > off the proctors, after all.
14 Please lay off the personal attacks here; it's getting beyond ridiculous.
15 Wolf31o2 is not the only council member who wanted to 'kill off the
16 proctors', see below:
18 - Kingtaco wanted a vote to cancel the proctors. robbat2 wanted them to just
19 die quietly if no material was forthcoming. Others called for a definate
20 stand rather than the "die quietly". All 5 attending council members voted
21 in favour of dropping the proctors.
22 Seems to me that every council member in attendance decided they wanted to
23 'kill off the proctors.'
25 Kind regards,
26 Christina Fullam
27 Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations
29 --
30 gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list


Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] RE: Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>