Re: [gentoo-project] Why should you *not* vote on existing Council members

[Michał Górny]

On Sun, 2019-06-16 at 23:42 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> [...]
>
> - In addition, people *required* for meeting according to agenda
> received an additional invitation with all details (antarus should be
> able to confirm).

It's interesting how you define 'required'.  Because I see myself
explicitly mentioned *twice* in the agenda [1], and I certainly did not
receive any additional invitation.  Does this mean that agenda items are
not considered important by the Council?

[1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/f13a423c093fef063d3d738154faa99c

>
> So really, saying "meeting time changes without announcement" is wrong,
> misleading and discrediting current council. Sure, in retrospective I am
> sorry for not adding a special paragraph. But on the other hand: When
> you don't read announcement mail in first place, why should you notice
> the special paragraph?! You either read mail or you don't...

And on what grounds do you accuse me of not reading it?  Is this really
an appropriate way for a Council member to treat your fellow voters?

Just because I don't notice a tiny change on the otherwise boilerplate
first line of the announcement?  This is especially likely to be
confused to us in CEST timezone as 19:00Z is 21:00 to us.

If that's what you want to hear then yes, it's my fault for not being
more careful and being too trusting to people I voted for.  I won't make
that mistake twice.  I mean the latter mistake.

>
>
> > Secret meetings, secret decisions
> > =================================
> > This year's Council has been engaged in accepting secret agenda item
> > concerning commit access of a pseudonymous dev, holding secret meetings,
> > over it and making secret decisions that were never announced.
> > At the same time, they managed to blame Undertakers for not knowing
> > about any of that.
> >
> > To cite a Bugzilla comment on the topic:
> >
> > > You are aware that we have a special situation here? Most of
> > > the inactivity period falls between the acceptance of GLEP 76
> > > (in September/October 2018) and the Council sorting out a way for him
> > > how to proceed (in April 2019).  [...]  [11]
> >
> > Are you aware of those April 2019 proceedings?  Because there's no trace
> > of any decision in meeting logs.
>
> This is another false accusation.
>
> Like you can read in *public* meeting log, NP-Hardass asked council
> member for a private talk:
>
> > 16:01 <+NP-Hardass> Yeah, I'd like to meet privately with the council
> >                     after open floor to discuss my commit privileges
>
> Really, aren't council member allowed to talk with others privately?
> Like you can see I made it very clear that we will not decide anything:
>
> > 16:02 <@Whissi> Sure we can talk privately but any decision must be public.
>
> And exactly that's what happened: We talked about a *private* topic and
> nothing was decided.
>
> So please stop your false accusation, misleading statements and
> discrediting current council.

If nothing was decided, then why did he suddenly become able to commit? 
Again, as I said in the other reply, if you cause something to happen
it's a change, even if you don't formally decide it.  Especially when
you afterwards publicly admit that he wasn't able to commit before this
secret meeting.

> > Abusing Council position to change own team's policy
> > ====================================================
> > How would you feel about a person that's both in QA and Council using
> > his Council position to change a policy that's been proposed with QA
> > lead's blessing?
> >
> > [...]
>
> This is an interesting topic. If I would be part of QA project and I
> would be the person you are talking about, I would contradict you
> energetically. Because I am not I just want to add the following note to
> the remarkable council meeting you quoted:
>
> If you read raw meeting log you could come to the conclusion that you
> (mgorny) were threatening ulm or that ulm wasn't at least free anymore
> in his decision:
>
> > 21:42:29]<mgorny>    Whissi: are you going to call another vote with 14d,
> >                      so i could be angry with ulm for wasting time over
> >                      one day?
>
> This isn't just my view, more than 2 other developers shared their
> concerns with me after they read posted raw meeting log.

That is pure nonsense.  If you focus on what I was saying earlier (or
later), you'd clearly understand that I was frustrated because
*the meeting was very late*, *I was losing precious sleep* (but I guess
sleep deprivation is nothing compared to the importance of Council
members making their decisions) and *silly difference of 1 day was
causing me to lose another 10 minutes of sleep*.

> In reply to Andrew's mail
> (https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/d1433dbe7fcbe81305e7b0b0007441ee)
> who criticized the decision I just want to add that the decision was
> very close and far from unanimous: If either QA member would have
> abstained from vote due to possible conflict of interest or didn't
> change from NO to ABSTAIN to demonstrate protest, the last motion would
> have failed like the others before...

And what does that exactly demonstrate?  How unprofessional Council was
in making this decision?


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny