| 1 |
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:40:08 PM EDT William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> What policy is mentioned here as to my denial of ability to become a |
| 5 |
> developer again? |
| 6 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135927#c43 |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If you read the comments from 2015, the word I is used 5 times. To reflect an |
| 9 |
individuals opinion not all of comrel. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
In reading policies, it is clear the team lead continues to violate them |
| 12 |
acting with unilateral authority no individual has... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
"The Process for the Resolution Conflicts |
| 15 |
A member of Community Relations will be tasked to try and resolve disputes |
| 16 |
covered by this policy. Should such mediation fail, Community Relations will |
| 17 |
vote to resolve the issue. " |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
"If all attempts at mediation fail, the issue is escalated and a decision will |
| 20 |
be made by majority vote of Community Relations members; this process is |
| 21 |
detailed in the Policy and Process sections below." |
| 22 |
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/ |
| 23 |
Project:ComRel#The_Process_for_the_Resolution_Conflicts |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Telling me I have to request a vote of comrel goes directly against policy. |
| 26 |
They are supposed to vote for any action, which did not happen in 2015. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Every Comrel policy states they are supposed to try to mediate the matter |
| 29 |
before taking action. Did any mediate take place in 2015? Who was the |
| 30 |
mediator? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Per the above it is clearly Andreas Hüttel is acting on his own. He stated his |
| 33 |
own personal opinion, not that of comrel. Yet he claims to represent all of |
| 34 |
comrel, who did not vote on the matter. Despite policy saying that must |
| 35 |
happen, more than once. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Per policy I am supposed to be given 3 days to present information before the |
| 38 |
vote takes place. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Per policy the only time comrel has any authority over a returning developer |
| 41 |
is when they were removed from the project. I was never removed I resigned. |
| 42 |
What policy gives comrel the right to change a persons status from retired to |
| 43 |
removed? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Removing me from the project was never on the table in 2008 or since. That |
| 46 |
comrel can change my status to give them further power/authority per policies, |
| 47 |
they selectively use is not documented anywhere. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
No policy states a retired developer can have their status changed to removed |
| 50 |
from retired. Thus without that, per policy, comrel has no right to get |
| 51 |
involved in my recruiting process nor has veto power. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
The list of policy violations is quite extensive, and I am just talking about |
| 54 |
2015. Anyone can easily see that history for themselves. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
I will close with a final example of how policies are not followed. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
"In case a disciplinary action is applied, one of the ComRel members must e- |
| 59 |
mail the offender as soon as possible informing him of the situation and |
| 60 |
possible consequences for repetitive violations." |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Where is that email? The one in the bug is a final consequence email. Where is |
| 63 |
the one informing me of the situation and possible consequences? |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Where has comrel ever followed their own policies.... |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives