From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KY0XB-00087G-Ei for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:32:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EDCE3E014E; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:32:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFCB9E014C; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:32:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (c-98-232-162-84.hsd1.or.comcast.net [98.232.162.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D295064F6A; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:32:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:32:30 -0700 From: Donnie Berkholz To: Thomas Anderson Cc: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Decision on recent developer retirements Message-ID: <20080826153230.GB7081@comet> References: <20080821001141.GA27708@aerie.halcy0n.com> <20080823113935.GB6392@spoc.mpa.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080823113935.GB6392@spoc.mpa.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Archives-Salt: 1323188a-0174-416d-af61-141b4420c98f X-Archives-Hash: 2f2d643aa9faccf535098874ac5ec8ec --NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 07:39 Sat 23 Aug , Thomas Anderson wrote: > Let me see if I understand the council's reasoning... >=20 > If dev A gets retired by devrel for insufficient reasons(what those > reasons are are irrelevant to this discussion), and his behaviour does > not change after his retirement(as he never had wrong behaviour), then > dev A's appeal is rejected? Let's start at the beginning of what you've said here. First, you claim=20 the reasons are insufficient. If the lead of devrel and all 7 council=20 members disagree with that, you might want to reset your idea of what=20 levels of abuse are acceptable in Gentoo. Second, we apparently failed to make it clear enough for non-English=20 natives exactly how this worked. There are basically 3 possible=20 positions to have on anything: 1. Clear belief that an issue should be approved 2. Clear belief that an issue should be denied 3. Ambiguous: based on the observed evidence, it could go either way. The description of which times we would go with the original decision is=20 to explain what happens under scenario 3 above. This applies to not just=20 devrel but to any team or person within Gentoo making a decision that=20 gets appealed. If there's not a good enough reason (in our judgment) to=20 change the original decision, we leave it. > Now, some may say that this is the reason Council reviewed the > evidence(did that really happen?). To prove my point, I'd like to ask > the council(and anyone else interested in devrel/council policy) > what reasons it found, looking through the evidence > provided, that any of the three developers were a security risk, I > certainly didn't see any.=20 I found no good reason to reverse any of the decisions. The closest=20 thing I saw was some ambiguity, and that is specifically what we decided=20 to defer to devrel on as I described above. --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com --NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAki0Ig4ACgkQXVaO67S1rtsO0gCfesBfozIjWWR8wpcvNC5q0ht+ sGcAn0Zy3EGlpxD7e5F6RsY77Lm9zy4R =Hz2a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NDin8bjvE/0mNLFQ--