| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I don't disagree with this. Still, trustees should not be able to |
| 5 |
> exclude a member without a reason, and they should communicate that |
| 6 |
> reason (not necessarily in public, but at least to the excluded |
| 7 |
> member) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Well, they would need to have a reason to go through the hassle of removing |
| 11 |
a member. I would be more concerned that they would communicate a general |
| 12 |
reason to the Gentoo community so that there would be some accountability. |
| 13 |
Of course, this is a delicate balancing act -- how much information to |
| 14 |
share, etc. I think it would be highly specific on the circumstances how |
| 15 |
much information is appropriate to share, which would be hard to predict |
| 16 |
ahead of time and make rules about. I think that in these circumstances, |
| 17 |
the more reason/justification that is provided, the more 'ammunition' you |
| 18 |
are giving to a potentially combative person to continue a conflict that |
| 19 |
the trustees are desperately trying to end for the sake of the project. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Best, |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Daniel |
Archives