| 1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> What do you suggest? Should the Council refuse any requests of a |
| 4 |
>> developer to discuss personal issues? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> If the Council meeting resulted in situation change from A. a dev being |
| 7 |
> apparently unable to contribute to B. a dev being able to contribute, |
| 8 |
> then it counts as a change to me. It doesn't matter whether it was |
| 9 |
> taken as a vote. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Don't you think others who possibly are in similar situation would like |
| 12 |
> to know about it? Don't you think it's double standards to set rules |
| 13 |
> for general population, then privately admit loophole for a specific |
| 14 |
> developer? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
IMHO it is not a double standard. The situation is special and unique |
| 17 |
that the developer was able to contribute, but lost that ability due to |
| 18 |
policies that weren't in place (or at least, not enforced) at the time |
| 19 |
he had been recruited. The Council didn't go as far as "grandfathering" |
| 20 |
him, but we felt (and unanimously voted) that at this point, retiring |
| 21 |
him for inactivity was also going too far. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Ulrich |
Archives