| 1 |
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 01:53:15 +0000 |
| 2 |
"M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 13/11/16 01:48, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On 11/13/2016 02:45 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> On 13/11/16 01:44, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 7 |
> >>> On 11/13/2016 02:40 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 8 |
> >>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:24:12 PM EST Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 9 |
> >>>>> In either case the person affected can appeal to Council which makes |
| 10 |
> >>>>> the final decision. |
| 11 |
> >>>> If a problem went from Team Lead, or Leads, to a vote from the entire council. |
| 12 |
> >>>> An appeal should not be necessary. There should not be an appeal process or |
| 13 |
> >>>> need. Such things should not occur and everyone should be doing everything |
| 14 |
> >>>> possible to prevent it. Thus again nothing to appeal. |
| 15 |
> >>>> |
| 16 |
> >>> This is already the case where technical issues are discussed in a |
| 17 |
> >>> professional manner not involving personal conflicts. |
| 18 |
> >>> |
| 19 |
> >>> |
| 20 |
> >> With respect, Kristian, I really don't believe we have a problem with |
| 21 |
> >> technical matters ... ;] |
| 22 |
> >> |
| 23 |
> > The description above is a normative description of how things works in |
| 24 |
> > the general case, which doesn't involve comrel. The latter is only |
| 25 |
> > involved when the usual dispute resolution is not applicable due to |
| 26 |
> > personnel making technical issues personal. |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> Ok so for the sake of clarity, we have a purely technical issue, which |
| 29 |
> is either right or wrong .. and then someone takes it as a personal |
| 30 |
> affront, instead of being mature and professional, and accepting the |
| 31 |
> correction, learning the lesson, to put into practise in future. So |
| 32 |
> instead of the issue being purely technical .. said person MAKES it |
| 33 |
> personal .. and therefore themselves causes a conflict .. which requires |
| 34 |
> some form of Discipline .. which breeds hate .. and ... |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> .. you see where I'm going .. ?! |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I don't see what your problem is. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
QA handles the technical issue, and stays the correct body for |
| 41 |
the technical part of the issue. If someone adds a behavior issue for |
| 42 |
it, Comrel handles the latter. There are two separate issues, that have |
| 43 |
some common evidence. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Of course, it sometimes did happen that one of the bodies already |
| 46 |
issued the ban, making any work on the other end unnecessary. I don't |
| 47 |
see a problem with that either. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Do we have any common members between Comrel and QA? That could be |
| 50 |
a conflict but could be easily solved via excluding the common member |
| 51 |
from the latter team for this particular issue. If you really think |
| 52 |
it's a problem. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Best regards, |
| 56 |
Michał Górny |
| 57 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives