1 |
On Sat, 2019-06-15 at 11:46 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
> > > > > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Michał Górny wrote: |
3 |
> > There wasn't even a single 'please note that the meeting will be held |
4 |
> > 2 hours later than usual'. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Indeed, that could have been more prominent. Note that normally we try |
7 |
> to emphasise such changes (just picking two examples, there are more): |
8 |
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/49e642140724ad0d22847e4e6798cc84 |
9 |
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev-announce/message/6b32250b8bf53cd3016331aebd75c956 |
10 |
> |
11 |
> > Secret meetings, secret decisions |
12 |
> > ================================= |
13 |
> > This year's Council has been engaged in accepting secret agenda item |
14 |
> > concerning commit access of a pseudonymous dev, holding secret meetings, |
15 |
> > over it and making secret decisions that were never announced. |
16 |
> > At the same time, they managed to blame Undertakers for not knowing |
17 |
> > about any of that. |
18 |
> > To cite a Bugzilla comment on the topic: |
19 |
> > > You are aware that we have a special situation here? Most of |
20 |
> > > the inactivity period falls between the acceptance of GLEP 76 |
21 |
> > > (in September/October 2018) and the Council sorting out a way for him |
22 |
> > > how to proceed (in April 2019). [...] [11] |
23 |
> |
24 |
> This has been taken out of context, with the rest of the comment (about |
25 |
> not blaming Undertakers) being omitted: |
26 |
> |
27 |
> > I don't see any accusation there. It is a motion drafted during the |
28 |
> > meeting, so please give us some leeway if it isn't the most beautiful |
29 |
> > wording in the world. |
30 |
> > Are you aware of those April 2019 proceedings? Because there's no trace |
31 |
> > of any decision in meeting logs. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Of course there cannot be a public log of a private meeting where |
34 |
> personal matters of a dev are discussed. And how do you know if any |
35 |
> votes were taken during that meeting? Maybe there weren't? |
36 |
> |
37 |
> What do you suggest? Should the Council refuse any requests of a |
38 |
> developer to discuss personal issues? |
39 |
|
40 |
If the Council meeting resulted in situation change from A. a dev being |
41 |
apparently unable to contribute to B. a dev being able to contribute, |
42 |
then it counts as a change to me. It doesn't matter whether it was |
43 |
taken as a vote. |
44 |
|
45 |
Don't you think others who possibly are in similar situation would like |
46 |
to know about it? Don't you think it's double standards to set rules |
47 |
for general population, then privately admit loophole for a specific |
48 |
developer? |
49 |
|
50 |
-- |
51 |
Best regards, |
52 |
Michał Górny |