Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 17:18 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:13:45 -0400
> Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
> > Uh - perhaps we should save our zealotry for constitutions for some
> > time when the Council is actually misbehaving?  This really seems
> > like a tempest in a teapot.
> >
> > If the council decided to start holding meetings in private, denied
> > any forum for dissent, began booting people merely for disagreeing,
> > and began taking the distro in a direction most devs don't like then
> > I'd be all for having a gentoo insurrection.
>
> Oh, I do hope that was said with irony. Funnily enough, the Council
> holding meetings in private (ask them about their secret channel on
> oftc and their meetings with musikc), denying dissent and booting people
> arbitrarily is exactly what lead to them holding the second meeting
> that started this discussion.

Another very good point. IMHO the CoC falls under the GSC which the
trustees/foundation enforces not the council. So they topic at hand for
the current council is not of technical nature and thus should not be on
their plate. Which the subsequent meeting of a topic/subject that should
not fall to them.

It's no wonder a technical council, did not show up to a meeting to
discuss social issues. Duh ;) Part of the reason I dislike punishment
for this so much. This was not a technical meeting, where a major
technical decision lie on the table going unresolved.

Has this missed meeting effected Gentoo's technical progress in any way
shape or form. Other than all of us wasting allot of time discussing BS
stuff rather than writing code and/or improving Gentoo technically.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation