| 1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 2020.12.12 15:15, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
>> >>>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > The original Proctors project was created by the council of the day |
| 6 |
>> > to be a quick reaction short slap response team to CoC violations. |
| 7 |
>> > Then one day, a council member did something to get slapped. |
| 8 |
>> > Instead of calming down and reflecting on events, by which time, the |
| 9 |
>> > slap would have worn off, said council member appealed directly to |
| 10 |
>> > council and managed to get the Proctors disbanded. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> That's very different from my recollection of events. The relevant |
| 13 |
>> Council log [1] also tells a different story. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> I have the 'benefit', that may not be the right word, of being the on |
| 16 |
> the proctors team at the time. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
OK, then let's look into the details. As I recall it, disbanding of was |
| 19 |
triggered by the infamous "Living in a bubble" thread on the gentoo-dev |
| 20 |
mailing list in 2007: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
- beejay posts a bad joke, disparaging Paludis and insulting ciaranm [2] |
| 23 |
- As can be expected, several people react to this |
| 24 |
- A Proctor (neddyseagoon) issues a warning [3], about half an hour |
| 25 |
after the original posting |
| 26 |
- Shortly after that, another Proctor (amne) suspends two peoples' |
| 27 |
(ciaranm and geoman) accounts [4] |
| 28 |
- At which point a Council member (wolf31o2) complains about the |
| 29 |
Proctors' action (in his opinion, banning the wrong people) and calls |
| 30 |
for disbanding of the Proctors [5] |
| 31 |
- amne rage-quits [6] |
| 32 |
- A discussion follows about the Proctors project, and that they should |
| 33 |
develop some guidelines. Which never happens. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
There's also a summary of this by marienz, from a Proctor's point of |
| 36 |
view [7]. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
So please tell me, where in the above chain of event do you see a CoC |
| 39 |
violation by a Council member? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
And of course, nothing of this is relevant for the present discussion. |
| 42 |
Still, if you make accusations like this: |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
>> > That sent the message to the community that the CoC did not apply |
| 45 |
>> > to council members. The CoC has never recovered. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
... then I pretty much think that you should back them by actual facts. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Ulrich |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
>> [1] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20070712.txt |
| 52 |
[2] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/6feb6e4bb68ca5e7bffc68a3db3b9567 |
| 53 |
[3] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/c407c20291a64f371979f54ed7b1025c |
| 54 |
[4] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/028d7f7cb5dbba891c3278ca4e51f11f |
| 55 |
[5] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/1d81fae0e3fad23f894a092255edfbe6 |
| 56 |
[6] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/4378a6d6f0986a6e1384231d4ba86b02 |
| 57 |
[7] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/6707daa4c9368ba48d6997ca16162c16 |
Archives