1 |
Hi, |
2 |
|
3 |
On 2019-06-17 07:32, Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
> On Sun, 2019-06-16 at 23:42 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
5 |
>> [...] |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> - In addition, people *required* for meeting according to agenda |
8 |
>> received an additional invitation with all details (antarus should be |
9 |
>> able to confirm). |
10 |
> |
11 |
> It's interesting how you define 'required'. Because I see myself |
12 |
> explicitly mentioned *twice* in the agenda [1], and I certainly did not |
13 |
> receive any additional invitation. Does this mean that agenda items are |
14 |
> not considered important by the Council? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> [1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/f13a423c093fef063d3d738154faa99c |
17 |
|
18 |
No, it isn't. It's already exactly the way you want it to be (and I had |
19 |
to learn it during my first council meeting the hard way, too; See |
20 |
https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20180729.txt): |
21 |
|
22 |
In general, we already have the mantra, "No discussion during meeting" |
23 |
(for topics from mailing list). |
24 |
|
25 |
So regarding agenda items you added (topic 3 & 5): |
26 |
|
27 |
These topics were already discussed on mailing list so they should NOT |
28 |
require discussion during meeting. Therefore you did NOT receive an |
29 |
additional invitation like antarus received for topic 4 where I asked |
30 |
him to participate to report status. |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
>> So really, saying "meeting time changes without announcement" is wrong, |
34 |
>> misleading and discrediting current council. Sure, in retrospective I am |
35 |
>> sorry for not adding a special paragraph. But on the other hand: When |
36 |
>> you don't read announcement mail in first place, why should you notice |
37 |
>> the special paragraph?! You either read mail or you don't... |
38 |
> |
39 |
> And on what grounds do you accuse me of not reading it? Is this really |
40 |
> an appropriate way for a Council member to treat your fellow voters? |
41 |
> |
42 |
> Just because I don't notice a tiny change on the otherwise boilerplate |
43 |
> first line of the announcement? This is especially likely to be |
44 |
> confused to us in CEST timezone as 19:00Z is 21:00 to us. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> If that's what you want to hear then yes, it's my fault for not being |
47 |
> more careful and being too trusting to people I voted for. I won't make |
48 |
> that mistake twice. I mean the latter mistake. |
49 |
|
50 |
Erm, you are the one who blamed current running council for *NOT* |
51 |
announcing changed meeting time. Something which I take *very serious* |
52 |
because if that would be true, we would have violated important |
53 |
principles like |
54 |
|
55 |
> The Council members are elected for a year and must hold monthly public meetings. |
56 |
|
57 |
So when you bring that up, I have to assume that you are the one who |
58 |
didn't read the announcement mail and therefore accuse us for not |
59 |
announcing the meeting time in advance making it impossible for anyone |
60 |
interested to attend which would be equal to a non-public meeting which |
61 |
would be a serious violation of Gentoo's principles. |
62 |
|
63 |
I always wrote "21:00 UTC" so I am sorry, I don't understand what you |
64 |
are trying to say with the "CEST timezone" paragraph at the moment. |
65 |
|
66 |
|
67 |
> If that's what you want to hear then yes, it's my fault for not being |
68 |
> more careful and being too trusting to people I voted for. I won't make |
69 |
> that mistake twice. I mean the latter mistake. |
70 |
|
71 |
Like written above, I am taking this reproach seriously, also personally |
72 |
because I was meeting chair and therefore responsible for announcement. |
73 |
|
74 |
I hope I have the courage to take consequences if I am wrong and would |
75 |
have violated such an important principle but when I have NOT and people |
76 |
start thinking it is inappropriate to defend yourself against false |
77 |
claims I have nothing more to say. |
78 |
|
79 |
So yes, if that's your view and that's all you got from my response, be |
80 |
careful and don't do 'mistakes' twice! |
81 |
|
82 |
|
83 |
>>> Secret meetings, secret decisions |
84 |
>>> ================================= |
85 |
>>> This year's Council has been engaged in accepting secret agenda item |
86 |
>>> concerning commit access of a pseudonymous dev, holding secret meetings, |
87 |
>>> over it and making secret decisions that were never announced. |
88 |
>>> At the same time, they managed to blame Undertakers for not knowing |
89 |
>>> about any of that. |
90 |
>>> |
91 |
>>> To cite a Bugzilla comment on the topic: |
92 |
>>> |
93 |
>>>> You are aware that we have a special situation here? Most of |
94 |
>>>> the inactivity period falls between the acceptance of GLEP 76 |
95 |
>>>> (in September/October 2018) and the Council sorting out a way for him |
96 |
>>>> how to proceed (in April 2019). [...] [11] |
97 |
>>> |
98 |
>>> Are you aware of those April 2019 proceedings? Because there's no trace |
99 |
>>> of any decision in meeting logs. |
100 |
>> |
101 |
>> This is another false accusation. |
102 |
>> |
103 |
>> Like you can read in *public* meeting log, NP-Hardass asked council |
104 |
>> member for a private talk: |
105 |
>> |
106 |
>>> 16:01 <+NP-Hardass> Yeah, I'd like to meet privately with the council |
107 |
>>> after open floor to discuss my commit privileges |
108 |
>> |
109 |
>> Really, aren't council member allowed to talk with others privately? |
110 |
>> Like you can see I made it very clear that we will not decide anything: |
111 |
>> |
112 |
>>> 16:02 <@Whissi> Sure we can talk privately but any decision must be public. |
113 |
>> |
114 |
>> And exactly that's what happened: We talked about a *private* topic and |
115 |
>> nothing was decided. |
116 |
>> |
117 |
>> So please stop your false accusation, misleading statements and |
118 |
>> discrediting current council. |
119 |
> |
120 |
> If nothing was decided, then why did he suddenly become able to commit? |
121 |
> Again, as I said in the other reply, if you cause something to happen |
122 |
> it's a change, even if you don't formally decide it. Especially when |
123 |
> you afterwards publicly admit that he wasn't able to commit before this |
124 |
> secret meeting. |
125 |
|
126 |
Really? Are you still on your crusade against NP-hardass? I really hoped |
127 |
you get the closing statement from |
128 |
(https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20190512-summary.txt |
129 |
6a), something which happened for the first time in council history. |
130 |
|
131 |
> If nothing was decided, then why did he suddenly become able to commit? |
132 |
|
133 |
Where do you see commits from him? |
134 |
|
135 |
If there is a commit from him (=where he is set as committer and have |
136 |
signed the push) *after* GLEP 76 was enforced I assume that he did so in |
137 |
compliance with GLEP 76 like any other Gentoo developer. |
138 |
|
139 |
|
140 |
Regarding your bugzilla quote: |
141 |
You, as part of undertaker project, started retirement of NP-hardass |
142 |
which can be seen in bug history. You, as part of undertaker project |
143 |
ignored any input from NP-hardass because it didn't match secret |
144 |
(https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Undertakers&curid=116572&diff=801701&oldid=801431 |
145 |
+ more edits) undertaker policy. |
146 |
|
147 |
During council meeting from 2019-05-12, we, the current running council, |
148 |
tried to make it very clear that we are really concerned about |
149 |
undertaker project's attitude expressed in pre-meeting talk in |
150 |
#gentoo-council on 2019-05-08, 2019-05-09 and during meeting. And it |
151 |
looks like you still haven't understand our point: |
152 |
|
153 |
You are lacking humanity. |
154 |
|
155 |
With the quoted text, ulm tried to make you aware of the special |
156 |
situation: You, as undertaker project, are saying "Sorry NP-hardass, |
157 |
according to _my data_, you are no longer active, therefore I am going |
158 |
to retire you as part of my job as undertaker". With some kind of |
159 |
empathy you should have recognized that NP-hardass was unable to show up |
160 |
in your logs due to GLEP 76. |
161 |
|
162 |
If you understand the paragraph as if the Council had created a special |
163 |
regulation for NP-hardass, then there is a misunderstanding, something |
164 |
like that did *not* happen. |
165 |
|
166 |
|
167 |
-- |
168 |
Regards, |
169 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
170 |
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |