| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:48 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 2 |
<wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 12:29:19 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Everybody on this mailing list falls into one of three categories: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> 1. They don't have all the facts regarding whatever happened 8+ years |
| 8 |
>> ago regarding your case. (I'm in that category, FWIW.) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It is publicly available. This took place on a public mailing list -nfp. It |
| 11 |
> did not happen in a void or private communication. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Maybe it did. I can't vouch for this statement either way, because |
| 14 |
I'm in group #1. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> 2. They aren't allowed to post on this list whatever they do know |
| 18 |
>> about what happened 8+ years ago. |
| 19 |
>> 3. You. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> 4. They are no longer part of Gentoo. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Most of the people involved in 2008, Chrissy, Alec, etc have all moved on. The |
| 24 |
> mess created remains... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Well, if you have a problem with how Comrel is handling your case |
| 27 |
today, I suggest you appeal it. That is really all I can do in my |
| 28 |
position in group #1. If you appeal, I'll join group #2, and still |
| 29 |
won't be able to comment here on what happened, but I'd get a vote in |
| 30 |
whether you'd be allowed back. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
>> And this is why mailing lists aren't really an effective place to |
| 34 |
>> solve these sorts of disputes. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> What mailing list is? This is technically preventing development so should be |
| 37 |
> on -dev. This list was created for such things related to the project that are |
| 38 |
> not development related. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Not surprising to hear it is off topic for this list. Where is it on topic a |
| 41 |
> comrel list? |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
It would be on-topic in a private email to Comrel, or in an appeal to |
| 45 |
the Council. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Comrel chooses to get involved when they need not be. They had no reason to |
| 49 |
> get involved in 2015, or since 2008. They did not need to get involved and |
| 50 |
> take action in 2008. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Again, nobody here is really in a position to debate this issue. You |
| 54 |
can post that another 1000x if it makes you feel better, but it isn't |
| 55 |
going to be likely to cause anybody to take action on your case in |
| 56 |
particular. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> If comrel did nothing in 2015, I would not be here posting. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
And your recourse is to appeal. You haven't exhausted your options |
| 62 |
with the process as it currently stands. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Rich |
Archives