| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 10/07/2016 04:54 PM, Nick Vinson wrote: |
| 4 |
>> If the developer is really a problem, |
| 5 |
>> then ComRel will be given repeated chances to deal with the |
| 6 |
>> developer |
| 7 |
>> and eventually (well hopefully not eventually) the "due process" |
| 8 |
>> will be |
| 9 |
>> done correctly and the developer will be removed. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Not necessarily, bringing back might on its own open up for especially |
| 12 |
> PR issues, but also potentially legal ones. So its not as simple as |
| 13 |
> try-try-try-fail. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
In this case it would seem that the details of the particular case |
| 16 |
would matter. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Anything where bringing back a developer would cause *legal* issues |
| 19 |
IMHO automatically qualifies it as a "special case". |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
...but if that's so, then comrel had better have done a good job |
| 22 |
documenting the case. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If there's an *urgent* reason to retire a developer in a hurry it |
| 25 |
should be very easy and simple to document. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> -- |
| 28 |
> Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 29 |
> OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 30 |
> fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
| 31 |
> |
Archives