1 |
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 17:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:38:14 -0400 |
3 |
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > It's no wonder a technical council, did not show up to a meeting to |
5 |
> > discuss social issues. Duh ;) Part of the reason I dislike punishment |
6 |
> > for this so much. This was not a technical meeting, where a major |
7 |
> > technical decision lie on the table going unresolved. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> The Council holding secret meetings and collaborating with the devrel |
10 |
> lead behind the rest of devrel's backs is certainly a major issue... |
11 |
|
12 |
Then that should be grounds for removal. Not using that behind another |
13 |
clause of them missing a meeting to enforce what you want. |
14 |
|
15 |
For example, when I got a ticket for wreckless driving. When the police |
16 |
officer was accusing me of speeding, unsafe lane changes, and failure to |
17 |
use my signal. When I took it to court, even the judge stated. They |
18 |
could not use wreckless driving to encompass and enforce other |
19 |
infractions I might have committed. |
20 |
|
21 |
Thus it seems the real issue at hand is aspects of how the council has |
22 |
conducted itself. With this missed meeting, as just an excuse to |
23 |
forcibly bring about change there. Which only a small fraction seem to |
24 |
want or have issue with. Some of which aren't devs, so that fraction is |
25 |
even smaller. |
26 |
|
27 |
> As |
28 |
> for technical... The Council got itself involved in non-technical |
29 |
> things by kicking this whole mess off in the first place. |
30 |
|
31 |
Which council? Did this council create the CoC or make the matter fall |
32 |
under the council? |
33 |
|
34 |
> You'll note that Diego has said that he thinks it's the most important |
35 |
> thing the Council has ever done |
36 |
|
37 |
Is that an individual statement, or one coming from the entire council? |
38 |
Was he stating that representing the council or himself? |
39 |
|
40 |
> (although the Council has also said |
41 |
> that it wasn't them that did it -- one of the things that they were |
42 |
> supposed to be clarifying at the meeting...). |
43 |
|
44 |
Well I think this is where the trustees should step in a bit. We likely |
45 |
need to meet with the council and see why they feel the CoC should fall |
46 |
under them, rather than the GSC and under the trustees/foundation. I |
47 |
have disliked such matters falling under them since before I was even a |
48 |
trustee or considered such. It's just not technical stuff. |
49 |
|
50 |
I think the reason the CoC fell under the council, was because of a MIA |
51 |
board of trustees in past years. Also could be because the council is |
52 |
seen has having power, and the trustees? |
53 |
|
54 |
-- |
55 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
56 |
amd64/Java/Trustees |
57 |
Gentoo Foundation |