| 1 |
For the record the only reason I stand in opposition to William is his |
| 2 |
deliberate and flagrant trespass on a mailing list whose administration had |
| 3 |
revoked his posting privileges. The points he raised, however ill mannered |
| 4 |
a way he chose to do so, are in my humble opinion quite valid and I've also |
| 5 |
heard similiar rumors from other sources. I don't think William's points |
| 6 |
should be swept under the rug as it were just because he chose a very |
| 7 |
anti-social method of making them. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I humbly ask that any points william (or anyone else for that matter) makes |
| 10 |
regarding process or procedure, social or technical or otherwise, be |
| 11 |
evaluated in an objective manner with an eye towards the long term health |
| 12 |
of Gentoo as both a foundation and as a distribution our userbase depends |
| 13 |
on. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As with the message by Daniel Campbell following the one I am currently |
| 16 |
quoting, I too have made observations and I also plan to take similiar |
| 17 |
diligence when I exercise my new voting privileges as a recent addition to |
| 18 |
the foundation when the trustee elections come around. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
We're geeks working on a linux distro, let's act like it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Seemant Kulleen <seemantk@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Hi All, |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> To OFFICIAL GENTOO peeps on this list (aka my friends): |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Can we please put the guns away now? William is in a heightened state of |
| 29 |
> agitation, and silencing him or adding emails like this will only stoke the |
| 30 |
> fires of agitation more. Silencing him isn't going to "make the problem go |
| 31 |
> away." |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> What I am witnessing on this list is a voice (or more) railing against an |
| 34 |
> impersonal bureaucracy (full of "pass the buck" -- don't like ComRel, go to |
| 35 |
> council; don't like council? go to council; don't like Gentoo, speak; don't |
| 36 |
> like Gentoo, but not like by Gentoo, don't speak). |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> I would like to suggest that maybe there is a degree of correctness in the |
| 39 |
> angst that people have expressed about ComRel (and Council and the Gentoo |
| 40 |
> Bureaucracies in general). |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Cheers, |
| 43 |
> Seemant |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> PS The larger philosophical question is: Are we seriously banning people |
| 46 |
> as a community? What sort of community are we, in fact? |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> *--* |
| 50 |
> *Oakland Finish Up Weekend* |
| 51 |
> Be Amazed. Be Amazing. |
| 52 |
> Get Mentored | Get Inspired | *Finish* *Up* |
| 53 |
> http://oaklandfinishup.com |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn < |
| 57 |
> chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
>> William L. Thomson Jr. schrieb: |
| 60 |
>> |
| 61 |
>>> So what section of the CoC was violated? |
| 62 |
>>> |
| 63 |
>> |
| 64 |
>> Whatever it was, you are now in violation of the rules by circumventing |
| 65 |
>> the ban. If you disagree with Comrel action, you need to go to the Council. |
| 66 |
>> |
| 67 |
>> |
| 68 |
>> Best regards, |
| 69 |
>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 70 |
>> |
| 71 |
>> |
| 72 |
>> |
| 73 |
> |
Archives