| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:22 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 2 |
<wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> One thing I would like to point out.... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> "or in more severe cases suspension of developer privileges" |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> My case was never severe enough to justify or merit suspending developer |
| 9 |
> commit privileges for 15 days, that turned into 8+ years. This was supposed to |
| 10 |
> be reserved for severe cases. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Everybody on this mailing list falls into one of three categories: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
1. They don't have all the facts regarding whatever happened 8+ years |
| 15 |
ago regarding your case. (I'm in that category, FWIW.) |
| 16 |
2. They aren't allowed to post on this list whatever they do know |
| 17 |
about what happened 8+ years ago. |
| 18 |
3. You. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
And this is why mailing lists aren't really an effective place to |
| 21 |
solve these sorts of disputes. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Dis-ban comrel, or revoke their powers they abuse punishing developers, so |
| 25 |
> people can get back to work and stop with the social bs.... |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I've yet to see a Comrel case appealed that centered around people |
| 29 |
just doing work. If somebody just submits patches or commits all day |
| 30 |
long they're not going to have anything to even get involved with. |
| 31 |
Maybe QA might get involved, but not Comrel. Typically Comrel gets |
| 32 |
involved because somebody decided to dabble in social bs in the first |
| 33 |
place. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Rich |
Archives