1 |
Hello friends! |
2 |
|
3 |
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Christopher Díaz Riveros |
4 |
<chrisadr@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> Daniel, |
6 |
> |
7 |
> El lun, 02-04-2018 a las 09:23 -0600, Daniel Robbins escribió: |
8 |
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:53 AM, Christopher Díaz Riveros |
9 |
>> <chrisadr@g.o> wrote: |
10 |
>> > _You_ can say that this is your Burden of proof that mgorny is not |
11 |
>> > capable of being a Council member, but in the same line, _your |
12 |
>> > post_ |
13 |
>> > shows that you are neither in position to be a good Council member |
14 |
>> > or |
15 |
>> > project lead, at least that's just _my_ opinion about this post. |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> I am perfectly happy with you having that opinion, because I have |
18 |
>> never had any intention of being a Council member or project lead, |
19 |
>> nor "returning BDFL" of Gentoo that mgorny insinuates. |
20 |
>> |
21 |
> |
22 |
> No Daniel, but the fact is that you have history with Gentoo, even when |
23 |
> you don't see yourself trying to be a "leader", you need to act like |
24 |
> one. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> This reminds me some horrible local news from my country, where a |
27 |
> congressman had to made public some videos about corruption that we |
28 |
> suffer as country, that ended up in the resignation of our president. |
29 |
> Maybe he had to leave, but making pressure by using private videos and |
30 |
> then release them to public, was definetly not he correct way to do |
31 |
> that. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> This is the fact from you fact-list: |
34 |
> |
35 |
> You showed the whole mailing list (and leaved a permanent tracking |
36 |
> file) a conversation that was not previously seen by ComRel (which is |
37 |
> the project who you should try to contact before making this kind of |
38 |
> information public). Even when you are "just another user" here... I |
39 |
> mean, you run Funtoo, you are a public leader, and how could I possibly |
40 |
> trust my leader if he shows private conversations publicly... that's a |
41 |
> fact no matter with whom the conversation is, or what is it about. |
42 |
> |
43 |
|
44 |
While in general I have no business posting here, I think I should |
45 |
rephrase what it seems you are saying: |
46 |
|
47 |
"People should not be held accountable for their actions, because that |
48 |
might make them feel bad." |
49 |
|
50 |
I would be hard pressed to find people who agree. |
51 |
|
52 |
|
53 |
Using the (US) legal system as a guide, if I break the law to obtain |
54 |
evidence of someone *else* breaking the law, that evidence is |
55 |
admissible (if I remember correctly) because I am not the government. |
56 |
However, it is likely I would still be prosecuted for whatever law |
57 |
that I broke, though in some areas any charges might be waived by |
58 |
statute. |
59 |
|
60 |
In a semi-related vein, the majority of US states do not require that |
61 |
all parties agree to have their correspondence recorded for any of the |
62 |
participants to record that correspondence. |
63 |
|
64 |
|
65 |
It stands to reason that if someone sees you behaving in a manner they |
66 |
think others should be made aware of, society already supports making |
67 |
others aware of those actions, even if custom would be to keep them |
68 |
private. |
69 |
|
70 |
Cheers, |
71 |
R0b0t1 |