Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o>
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 16:55:50
Message-Id: 1211129739.5569.108.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008] by Ciaran McCreesh
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature