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 1JDYzy-0007Yu-1B for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:33:38 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D7881E079F; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:33:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91143E079F for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:33:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07FDC6576B for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:33:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: 1.207 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.207 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.861, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8VJn5YGKbc0B for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:33:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4426575C for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:33:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JDYzg-0004xf-9D for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:33:20 +0000 Received: from 91.84.168.160 ([91.84.168.160]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:33:20 +0000 Received: from slong by 91.84.168.160 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:33:20 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] RE: Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting Followup-To: gmane.linux.gentoo.project Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:39:39 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1199887212.23272.59.camel@liasis.inforead.com> <65DEF511CD88449DAC9B1252FDF49E32@draco2> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.84.168.160 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: bd6f95af-c6de-4a7f-b7f9-15f8978bc84e X-Archives-Hash: ac67fba46d213a392c091dc1fb59013f Chrissy Fullam wrote: >> Ferris McCormick wrote: >> With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors >> anymore to enforce the CoC. Thus, things we would expect the >> proctors to catch and handle under CoC get sent to devrel >> instead. All I am doing is wondering out loud (now that CoC >> is coming alive again) if we should start processing these >> under CoC rules. I'm asking Council because CoC belongs to >> Council, but I do not expect a ruling, just perhaps an >> interesting discussion. See, these things can't be caught >> before they get to devrel because you ensured there would be >> no one to catch them --- you are the one who wanted to kill >> off the proctors, after all. > > Please lay off the personal attacks here; it's getting beyond ridiculous. I'm sorry that really did not read like a personal attack. I have zero idea what the personal history between the parties is, but from what I have read on this list and project, Mr McCormick has only ever raised perfectly valid questions in a wholly appropriate manner. There are many examples of others using far more personal and frankly abusive comments which are never remarked on. Combined with the apparently partisan manner with which this is being dealt (devrel complaint and the head of devrel posting quite formal-sounding comments [in the other sub-thread] which simply sound threatening) one is left with an impression of a cliquey, factionalised dev-group, and tbh a rather bad taste in the mouth. > Wolf31o2 is not the only council member who wanted to 'kill off the > proctors', see below: > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070712-summary.txt > - Kingtaco wanted a vote to cancel the proctors. robbat2 wanted them to > just > die quietly if no material was forthcoming. Others called for a definate > stand rather than the "die quietly". All 5 attending council members > voted in favour of dropping the proctors. > Seems to me that every council member in attendance decided they wanted to > 'kill off the proctors.' > Without getting into that whole row, I must point out that meeting was a month after the "lovely email" you referred to, which came out of nowhere. (No prior discussion about any of the concerns had been raised with the proctors team.) Speculation as to the motives of the Council is moot: the consensus for proctors had been thrashed out on this list over a period of several months. Now we will have proctors by another name, only drawn from a far smaller pool much closer to the Council, with the remit confined to this list and no "useless warnings" only immediate action. I sincerely hope that works. [Please note followup] -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list