Re: [gentoo-project] Representation of Gentoo on third-party platforms

[M. J. Everitt]

On 13/11/16 08:17, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 01:53:15 +0000
> "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote:
>
>> Ok so for the sake of clarity, we have a purely technical issue, which
>> is either right or wrong .. and then someone takes it as a personal
>> affront, instead of being mature and professional, and accepting the
>> correction, learning the lesson, to put into practise in future. So
>> instead of the issue being purely technical .. said person MAKES it
>> personal .. and therefore themselves causes a conflict .. which requires
>> some form of Discipline .. which breeds hate .. and ...
>>
>> .. you see where I'm going .. ?!
> I don't see what your problem is.
>
> QA handles the technical issue, and stays the correct body for
> the technical part of the issue. If someone adds a behavior issue for
> it, Comrel handles the latter. There are two separate issues, that have
> some common evidence.
>
> Of course, it sometimes did happen that one of the bodies already
> issued the ban, making any work on the other end unnecessary. I don't
> see a problem with that either.
>
> Do we have any common members between Comrel and QA? That could be
> a conflict but could be easily solved via excluding the common member
> from the latter team for this particular issue. If you really think
> it's a problem.
>
I think your argument holds water, but perhaps it's overkill to create
two "issues"/bugs, if you will, and go from there. However, if both
projects (QA and ComRel) were to amass evidence pertaining to their
respective 'expertises', and present a single issue to Council, then
perhaps this may be one pathway to take. I think some clarification
policy/procedure in the form of guidelines would probably help here ..
but the first step is inevitably divorcing the technical from the
personal 'end' of the problem, which was the root of my original post :).