Re: [gentoo-project] Evidence of idella4's damage to Gentoo, please

[Ian Delaney]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 18:48:33 -0500
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Gregory Woodbury <redwolfe@×××××.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > So, as far as Gentoo: I think the distro has become a bit too
> > bureaucratic and
> > has lost some of the will to get things done. To salvage the
> > project, it will need
> > to open up and focus on getting things done rather than to focus on
> > being a community that doesn't want to offend anybody.
>
> So, while I agree with the majority of your post in general, I don't
> see how it really fits Gentoo.  Most of those in leadership have been
> fairly up-front that they're much more concerned about pragmatism than
> rules.  There are certainly reasons to have
> rules/guidelines/documentation/etc, but we'll never have a perfect set
> of rules and we don't let written rules stand in the way of doing the
> right thing.
>

WHAT ?

> When somebody messes up, comrel deals with it.  If they have a problem
> with comrel the council deals with it.  If the community has a problem
> with the council they can vote for a different council.  I don't
> really see a lot of bureaucracy here.
>

WHAT ?

> In fact, I think this is one of the largest misconceptions I see in
> debates on this general topic.


You might

> People seem to think that if they
> could just see all the data they could point out where some reasoning
> was wrong and change the Council's minds, as if there is some kind of
> logical argument at stake which must be won.
>

Well yes.

> I haven't seen many appeals, but when I vote to uphold a comrel
> decision typically it is fairly obvious that something wrong was done,
> and I'm more interested in whether the person involved acknowledges
> that what they did was wrong and that they intend to not continue to
> do it.
>

WHAT?

> In the well over 100 posts and IRC logs that this general topic has
> attracted I've seen all kinds of things:
>
> 1.  Arguments about whether complaints about people should be handled
> in public or private.
>
> 2.  Arguments about whether we should be concerned about anybody's
> non-technical behavior at all.
>
> 3.  Arguments about the process.
>
> 4.  Arguments that Gentoo would be better off if only person A were a
> developer.
>
> 5.  Arguments that Gentoo would be better off if only persons B and C
> were still developers, apparently setting aside the fact that when
> person C last quit they expressed that it was in part out of
> frustration that person B was even allowed to post on the lists.
>
> 6.  Arguments that because we haven't kicked out everybody who does
> anything wrong we can't kick out anybody who does anything wrong.
>
> 7.  Suggestions that there are conspiracies or personal biases or that
> Gentoo devs don't care about anybody who isn't a dev or that nobody is
> interested in recruiting/leading/whatevering.
>
> 8.  People complaining that Comrel does too much.
>
> 9.  People complaining that comrel does too little.
>
> The one thing I haven't seen is anybody saying, "Ok, maybe I blew it,
> and I'm sorry, I promise I won't do it again."  And, honestly, when I
> see an appeal that is probably the one thing I'm most interested in
> seeing.
>
> Sure, if there were no evidence that somebody did something wrong then
> I would back them up in an appeal.  However, the fact is that most of
> us blow it at one point or another and the thing that
> recruiters/comrel/council/etc end up looking for is signs that
> somebody is committed to following the CoC in the future, regardless
> of what has happened in the past.
>
>

My oh my oh my. How many times do I have to say it. Once more this time
in the ML. I DIDN'T SEE THE EVIDENCE. YOU REFUSED TO SHOW IT TO ME
DESPITE A FORMAL REQUEST via "SUBJECT: request for data" leaving me to
appeal by reverse engineering and deductive reasoning, only to have
ffffalll guy smirk and insist my detective work was all wrong as usual.

So still you expect me to own up to something I do not know that I did.
What I can say with confidence is that the data used as 'evidence' in
the tribunal called comrel was /query data logs commandeered by comrel
or supplied by a user still protected behind the curtain of
confidentiality, thereby breaching the trust that IS /query message, to
the convenience of the submitters and to comrel, who said that's fine
we got it; let's get sentencing.

NO. Do not expect me to bow to that level of abuse of process.
Still you put the outcome of a broken and questionable and now
openly challenged system as high priority over the broken and
questionable and now openly challenged system.

A new term for this: pants on head

There will be no meaningful reform until this wrong is righted and the
system that made this outcome repaired. By all appearances that means it
will NOT occur with you as a member of council, and indeed likely most
other current members for whom you speak.

Everything you have said and done has displayed servitude to rule and
protocol to the point of expulsion of an actively contributing and
respected developer trying to support gentoo and its users. And still
you attempt claim to act by pragmatism and defend the indefensible.
The concocted election of February, the replies of the installed
councillor were NOTHING but citations of rule and process to justify
the election and the process. I took MANY prompts by concerned users to
get him to volunteer something other than rule and quotes from the
gentoo bible to explain any rationale for it being called. No-one was
fooled. Bureaucracy lead and dictated everything to do with it.

I have patience.

-- 
kind regards

Ian Delaney