Re: [gentoo-project] Evidence of idella4's damage to Gentoo, please

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Ian Delaney <della5@×××××××××.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 18:48:33 -0500
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
>
>>
>> The one thing I haven't seen is anybody saying, "Ok, maybe I blew it,
>> and I'm sorry, I promise I won't do it again."  And, honestly, when I
>> see an appeal that is probably the one thing I'm most interested in
>> seeing.
>>
>> Sure, if there were no evidence that somebody did something wrong then
>> I would back them up in an appeal.  However, the fact is that most of
>> us blow it at one point or another and the thing that
>> recruiters/comrel/council/etc end up looking for is signs that
>> somebody is committed to following the CoC in the future, regardless
>> of what has happened in the past.
>>
>>
>
> My oh my oh my. How many times do I have to say it. Once more this time
> in the ML. I DIDN'T SEE THE EVIDENCE. YOU REFUSED TO SHOW IT TO ME
> DESPITE A FORMAL REQUEST via "SUBJECT: request for data" leaving me to
> appeal by reverse engineering and deductive reasoning, only to have
> ffffalll guy smirk and insist my detective work was all wrong as usual.

So, here is the problem with trying to have a conversation like this
in public.  I can't even confirm or deny whether you have been the
subject of a comrel action or appeal.

If I knew you were given an example of a situation where you had
violated the CoC, I couldn't point that out either, nor could I cite
situations where this very matter was discussed, were that to have
happened.

And this is the downside to conducting matters like this in private.
You're welcome to make whatever accusations you wish, and nobody is
really free to contradict them.

However, I do think this is preferable to watching everybody go back
and forth and line up and take sides (which is basically what happens
when you try to do something like this in public; just look at the
start of this thread).  So, if you want to assume I was a part of
something sinister, then be my guest.

As Gregory said earlier, we need to avoid "being a community that
doesn't want to offend anybody."  I think people getting offended by
issues like this is basically inevitable.

I think that most of the general pros and cons to handling matters in
private have already been discussed ad nauseum.  If something new
comes up that warrants a reply I'll do so, but otherwise feel free to
refer to the countless responses I've already given as I don't think
it profits everybody to hear them again.  I'm not surprised that there
is disagreement on a matter like this.  I can only promise to be
up-front about things and if people have a problem they're welcome to
vote for somebody else.  I can't really discuss what has transpired in
any specific Council appeal.

-- 
Rich