| 1 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> No, I'm saying that you have no idea what led to these concerns. It |
| 5 |
>>> might or might not have something to do with something he posted |
| 6 |
>>> (which to me implies something written on an online public forum). |
| 7 |
>> And I thought I said that in my first reply. When I say it seems, it |
| 8 |
>> means that that is what it looks like. Since you likely have no more |
| 9 |
>> info on this than I do, you don't know that either, right? Maybe this |
| 10 |
>> will help: |
| 11 |
> If I did I probably wouldn't comment on the matter, and the |
| 12 |
> conversation would be even more one-sided. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>>> How do you know what William was or was not advised of? |
| 15 |
>> Because of his posts, it would seem he was not. Otherwise, why would he |
| 16 |
>> keep asking what it is he is appealing? |
| 17 |
> You would have to ask him. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I'm not sure it is needed. He has posted that he doesn't know what he |
| 20 |
would be appealing. Or is it like the other replies where everything |
| 21 |
has to go through a lawyer and be written in a way that there is |
| 22 |
absolutely no doubt before one can just read what he posted and figure |
| 23 |
it out? If he knows, why would he be asking? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> If he doesn't think Comrel is doing something, why is he posting here |
| 28 |
> in the first place? If he does thing Comrel is doing something, why |
| 29 |
> not just appeal it? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Based on what I have seen in the past few days, in this thread and in |
| 32 |
links posted in this thread, I'd say it is because he isn't getting |
| 33 |
responses from ComRel and he doesn't know what it is that he would be |
| 34 |
appealing. It would also seem that the people that he is working with |
| 35 |
to become a developer again don't know either. If I was a recruiter, I |
| 36 |
wouldn't spend time working with someone who is banned from ever |
| 37 |
rejoining Gentoo. It's not like Gentoo has a overabundance of people |
| 38 |
with to much time on their hands or anything. If I were banned from |
| 39 |
Gentoo, I wouldn't waste my time trying to rejoin either. Odds are, I |
| 40 |
also would rejoin even if asked. I'd spend my time elsewhere doing |
| 41 |
something else. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
>> Which is why he should take this to the council. I'm not sure that |
| 44 |
>> appeal is the right term for it but I guess it would be a start at |
| 45 |
>> least. ;-) |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
> Anybody can ask the Council to take up anything. I can't promise the |
| 48 |
> Council actually will, but there is a reason we send out those monthly |
| 49 |
> emails calling for agenda items. You don't need to request an appeal |
| 50 |
> in public, you just need to ask for one. At worst we'll try to be |
| 51 |
> helpful and tell you want to do before appealing if we don't think the |
| 52 |
> matter is ripe for an appeal. Believe it or not we're not actually |
| 53 |
> out to get people. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> For whatever reason the Comrel decisions are documented in a public |
| 56 |
> bug in this case. |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
So, it is publicly stated that William can't return to Gentoo on a bug? |
| 60 |
I don't recall seeing that linked to in this thread. Based on William's |
| 61 |
posts, I'm not sure he is aware of it either. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Dale |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
:-) :-) |
Archives