[gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2315 bytes --]

The canonical version of this agenda is located at:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/04

The time / date / location of the meeting are as follows
Saturday, April 21 2018 22:00 UTC on irc.freenode.net #gentoo-trustees

If you have a new item, make a new thread on the gentoo-nfp list.  One
item per thread.  If I missed an item please let me know (and point me
to it).  New submissions need to be recieved at least 48 hours before
the meeting is to take place.


Agenda Follows
==============

Alicef:
  - Add Foundation:Consultants reference to https://www.gentoo.org/support
    - This seems to be done already, just need an ack for removal
  - (non-corporate) donors / "friends" page
  - licencing update (with ulm)

klondike: request for accounting / bookkeeping (status update, with K_F)

prometheanfire: openssl ecc update (stabilize 1.1)

community-items:
  - Formalize Gentoo GLEP 39 as a bylaw (src: tamiko)
    - https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/72cd545080420eab7cb1403cea7caab4
  - GDPR (src: mrueg)
    - enoemail (send the email you sent us to the nfp list)
  - Formalize Gentoo's org structure (src: prometheanfire)
    - https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/944b824fc1d1ca89bcae2d1c3f0520b7
    - https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/58dbc3cbbb11dc3be2c0ceb3ad8a2059
  - Formalize Gentoo Foundation's control over Gentoo infrastructure (src: drobbins)
    - https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd
  - Trustees enforce CoC for Council (src: drobbins)
    - enoemail (send the email you sent us to the nfp list)
  - Trustees place user representitive on the council (src: drobbins)
    - enoemail (send the email you sent us to the nfp list)

Infra update: jmbsvicetto
Treasurer update: robbat2

Open Bugs: https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=VERIFIED&email2=trustees&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=TrusteesOpenBugs&list_id=3290194&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=---

Cleanup:  Next meeting: Saturday, May 19 2018 22:00 UTC

Open Floor


-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Dienstag, 10. April 2018, 22:51:06 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode:
> The canonical version of this agenda is located at:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/04
> 
> 
> Agenda Follows
> ==============
> 
[snip]
> 
> community-items:
>   - Formalize Gentoo GLEP 39 as a bylaw (src: tamiko)
>     -

Could we please have the precise motion that Matthias and me proposed on the 
agenda, and not some mumbo-jumbo about bylaws?

Thank you.


-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 977 bytes --]

On 18-04-10 23:56:03, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 10. April 2018, 22:51:06 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode:
> > The canonical version of this agenda is located at:
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/04
> > 
> > 
> > Agenda Follows
> > ==============
> > 
> [snip]
> > 
> > community-items:
> >   - Formalize Gentoo GLEP 39 as a bylaw (src: tamiko)
> >     -
          ^
          The link was right here, where'd it go?
> 
> Could we please have the precise motion that Matthias and me proposed on the 
> agenda, and not some mumbo-jumbo about bylaws?
> 

Does the link not show up for you? it does for me.  The next line in a
sub section has the link to the doc.  I'm using links because they can
be comsidered canonical, and because if I don't the email will get very
long.

I send the link AGAIN
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/72cd545080420eab7cb1403cea7caab4

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1232 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> On 18-04-10 23:56:03, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 10. April 2018, 22:51:06 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode:
> > > The canonical version of this agenda is located at:
> > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/04
> > >
> > >
> > > Agenda Follows
> > > ==============
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > community-items:
> > >   - Formalize Gentoo GLEP 39 as a bylaw (src: tamiko)
> > >     -
>           ^
>           The link was right here, where'd it go?
> >
> > Could we please have the precise motion that Matthias and me proposed on
> the
> > agenda, and not some mumbo-jumbo about bylaws?
> >
>
> Does the link not show up for you? it does for me.  The next line in a
> sub section has the link to the doc.  I'm using links because they can
> be comsidered canonical, and because if I don't the email will get very
> long.
>
> I send the link AGAIN
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
> 72cd545080420eab7cb1403cea7caab4
>
>
I think the objection is that they have asked the board to make a
statement; not change a bylaw.

The link worked on both copies for me.

-A


> --
> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2350 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1473 bytes --]

On 18-04-10 18:27:21, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > On 18-04-10 23:56:03, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, 10. April 2018, 22:51:06 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode:
> > > > The canonical version of this agenda is located at:
> > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/04
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Agenda Follows
> > > > ==============
> > > >
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > community-items:
> > > >   - Formalize Gentoo GLEP 39 as a bylaw (src: tamiko)
> > > >     -
> >           ^
> >           The link was right here, where'd it go?
> > >
> > > Could we please have the precise motion that Matthias and me proposed on
> > the
> > > agenda, and not some mumbo-jumbo about bylaws?
> > >
> >
> > Does the link not show up for you? it does for me.  The next line in a
> > sub section has the link to the doc.  I'm using links because they can
> > be comsidered canonical, and because if I don't the email will get very
> > long.
> >
> > I send the link AGAIN
> > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
> > 72cd545080420eab7cb1403cea7caab4
> >
> >
> I think the objection is that they have asked the board to make a
> statement; not change a bylaw.
> 
> The link worked on both copies for me.
> 

In that case I'm sorry, I'm working with tamiko on getting something
actionable.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Thode
<prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>   - Formalize Gentoo Foundation's control over Gentoo infrastructure (src: drobbins)
>     - https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd

While you're discussing securing our infrastructure you might want to
discuss what actions the Foundation intends to take in the event
somebody trespasses on our property, such as using it after being
expressly told not to.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 657 bytes --]

On 18-04-14 17:27:29, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Thode
> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >   - Formalize Gentoo Foundation's control over Gentoo infrastructure (src: drobbins)
> >     - https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd
> 
> While you're discussing securing our infrastructure you might want to
> discuss what actions the Foundation intends to take in the event
> somebody trespasses on our property, such as using it after being
> expressly told not to.
> 

I take you you are refrencing the recent ban evasion?

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Michał Górny]

W dniu sob, 14.04.2018 o godzinie 17∶27 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
napisał:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Thode
> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> >   - Formalize Gentoo Foundation's control over Gentoo infrastructure (src: drobbins)
> >     - https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd
> 
> While you're discussing securing our infrastructure you might want to
> discuss what actions the Foundation intends to take in the event
> somebody trespasses on our property, such as using it after being
> expressly told not to.
> 

Does the law of the NM state permit shooting trespassers?  And if not,
can we please move it to one that does?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1003 bytes --]

On 18-04-14 23:51:17, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu sob, 14.04.2018 o godzinie 17∶27 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> napisał:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Thode
> > <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > >   - Formalize Gentoo Foundation's control over Gentoo infrastructure (src: drobbins)
> > >     - https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd
> > 
> > While you're discussing securing our infrastructure you might want to
> > discuss what actions the Foundation intends to take in the event
> > somebody trespasses on our property, such as using it after being
> > expressly told not to.
> > 
> 
> Does the law of the NM state permit shooting trespassers?  And if not,
> can we please move it to one that does?
> 

I'm in Texas, the way I understand it is that you can shoot someone
that's fleeing with your stolen property, in order to recover it.  At
least in Texas...

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 627 bytes --]

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

>
> Does the law of the NM state permit shooting trespassers?  And if not,
> can we please move it to one that does?
>

I would like to know why wltjr, as he points out, has been banned for *over
a year*.

He is a former Gentoo trustee. His ban reason is listed as: "rants,
monologues, and offtopic repetitions"

(https://bugs.gentoo.org/640160)

The people behind the ban appear to be the usual suspects running
ComRel/Council.

Actually, scratch that -- don't bother answering. Considering this a
rhetorical question.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1133 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Luca Barbato]

On 15/04/2018 08:07, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Does the law of the NM state permit shooting trespassers?  And if not,
>> can we please move it to one that does?
>>
> 
> I would like to know why wltjr, as he points out, has been banned for *over
> a year*.
> 
> He is a former Gentoo trustee. His ban reason is listed as: "rants,
> monologues, and offtopic repetitions"
> 
> (https://bugs.gentoo.org/640160)

You should read
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel#Disciplinary_Actions_for_Escalated_Conflicts

> The people behind the ban appear to be the usual suspects running
> ComRel/Council.

Yet another friendly warning: this kind of unsubstantiated got you
already time off the mailing list.

Wltjr managed to get its longer time off the ml because of its repeated
small breaches of the CoC and ban evasions.

You seem to try to follow his lead with all your strength.

lu

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1273 bytes --]

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > The people behind the ban appear to be the usual suspects running
> > ComRel/Council.
>
> Yet another friendly warning: this kind of unsubstantiated got you
> already time off the mailing list.
>

Can you please explain what I did wrong and point to the CoC to support
your position? "Usual suspects" in this case is mgorny, ulm, dilfridge.
Mgorny and ulm are on council, dilfridge runs ComRel.

In the mean time, Luca, is ComRel planning to take an actions on mgorny's
suggestion that William be shot? Even if tongue in cheek, I am sure you
realize it's inappropriate.

Wltjr managed to get its longer time off the ml because of its repeated
> small breaches of the CoC and ban evasions.
>
> You seem to try to follow his lead with all your strength.
>

Could you please explain your comment that I am trying to "follow his lead
with all [my] strength"? And explain how this comment is not worse from a
CoC perspective than my "usual suspects" comment. If you call me out on
"usual suspects", then you shouldn't make insinuations about me either.
Either both comments are wrong or both insinuations are fair game on this
list.

Please be consistent, and don't be part of the problem.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1926 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 749 bytes --]

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org> wrote:
>
>
> In the mean time, Luca, is ComRel planning to take an actions on mgorny's
> suggestion that William be shot? Even if tongue in cheek, I am sure you
> realize it's inappropriate.
>

What's the matter, Luca? Cat caught your tongue?

Since I was banned from a Gentoo mailing list for 7 days for using a
naughty word, I am curious what will happen to mgorny for wishing out loud
that someone experience a violent death.

I know what would happen if I didn't bring attention to it: nothing.
What is still likely to happen after I bring attention to it: nothing.

But please, feel free to ban me for another 7 days for pointing out the
hypocrisy of ComRel.

Best,

Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1286 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Matthias Maier]

Dear Daniel,

OK. Full stop right here.

I am not exactly sure what you expect to achieve with your continued
rambling on our mailing lists. I can just tell you that it is neither
respect, nor acceptance from the developer community so far.

I for my part am very tired of reading all of these unsubstantiated,
personal attacks, wild accusations, and incoherent ramblings.

Further, I am at a loss why Gentoo, as an open source project, owes you
a justification for administrative measures we take. Or why we should
radically change our metastructure and established procedures just
to suit your idea how Gentoo should be structured and run.

Best,
Matthias

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Raymond Jennings]

I would be curious who actually has the authority to make such a
report in the first place.

I'm not exactly sure on NM law, but as far as I know in general, only
the legal owner of a piece of property or someone acting on their
behalf has the authority to press charges for such things.  So infra
or council or what have you couldn't actually be the ones to act on a
ban evasion unless they had authorization from trustees (even if
indirectly).  IANAL though.

My guess though is that some formalization of the foundation's control
over infrastructure would clarify such authority going forward if
necessary.

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 4:11 PM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> W dniu sob, 14.04.2018 o godzinie 17∶27 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
>> napisał:
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Thode
>>> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >   - Formalize Gentoo Foundation's control over Gentoo infrastructure (src: drobbins)
>>> >     - https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd
>>>
>>> While you're discussing securing our infrastructure you might want to
>>> discuss what actions the Foundation intends to take in the event
>>> somebody trespasses on our property, such as using it after being
>>> expressly told not to.
>>>
>>
>> Does the law of the NM state permit shooting trespassers?  And if not,
>> can we please move it to one that does?
>>
>
> You could report the intrusion to the FBI as a violation of the
> Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This might be more harmful than
> shooting.
>

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 907 bytes --]

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Dear Daniel,
>
> OK. Full stop right here.


What I would like to achieve is quite simple. I would like ComRel to be
consistent in their meting of discipline on the lists, and in the project
in general. I care about Gentoo developers, and don't care very much for
blatant hypocrisy. Nor do, I think, quite a few Gentoo developers who have
suffered because of this lack of consistency.

You don't owe me a justification. You owe the entire project and its users
an explanation for why you apply the CoC inconsistently. What I would
expect from ComRel is some kind of commitment to the community to enforce
standards fairly rather than selectively.

I think to people on the outside looking in, the lack of consistency and
playing of favorites is blatant and offensive.

I hope I have answered your questions.

Sincerely,

Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1367 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Luca Barbato]

On 15/04/2018 11:52, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In the mean time, Luca, is ComRel planning to take an actions on mgorny's
>> suggestion that William be shot? Even if tongue in cheek, I am sure you
>> realize it's inappropriate.
>>
> 
> What's the matter, Luca? Cat caught your tongue?

I happen to be on a different timezone (Japan) and I do not have
continuous connectivity.

> Since I was banned from a Gentoo mailing list for 7 days for using a
> naughty word, I am curious what will happen to mgorny for wishing out loud
> that someone experience a violent death.

You may properly contact comrel, as I already told you more than once in
public and private.

Please read the fine wiki page for detailed directions.

> I know what would happen if I didn't bring attention to it: nothing.
> What is still likely to happen after I bring attention to it: nothing.

Your way to "bring attention" means going against the CoC in blatant
ways, ignore the warning regarding unacceptable behavior and double down
for good measure.

> But please, feel free to ban me for another 7 days for pointing out the
> hypocrisy of ComRel.

You have your warning, is up to you if you want to keep behaving this
way (and get your 7days off for ignoring the warning) or not.

lu

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Luca Barbato]

On 15/04/2018 10:42, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>>> The people behind the ban appear to be the usual suspects running
>>> ComRel/Council.
>>
>> Yet another friendly warning: this kind of unsubstantiated got you
>> already time off the mailing list.
>>
> 
> Can you please explain what I did wrong and point to the CoC to support
> your position? "Usual suspects" in this case is mgorny, ulm, dilfridge.
> Mgorny and ulm are on council, dilfridge runs ComRel.

You keep attacking multiple people and tend to double down when you are
being told to stop.

> In the mean time, Luca, is ComRel planning to take an actions on mgorny's
> suggestion that William be shot? Even if tongue in cheek, I am sure you
> realize it's inappropriate.

Nobody contacted us regarding his email and I was not even aware it was
specifically targeting somebody.

> Could you please explain your comment that I am trying to "follow his lead
> with all [my] strength"? And explain how this comment is not worse from a
> CoC perspective than my "usual suspects" comment. If you call me out on
> "usual suspects", then you shouldn't make insinuations about me either.
> Either both comments are wrong or both insinuations are fair game on this
> list.

It is not an insinuation. It is a matter of fact.

You are willfully behaving in CoC-infringing ways on purpose and you
stated that yourself.

lu

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Michał Górny]

W dniu sob, 14.04.2018 o godzinie 23∶51 +0200, użytkownik Michał Górny
napisał:
> W dniu sob, 14.04.2018 o godzinie 17∶27 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> napisał:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Thode
> > <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > >   - Formalize Gentoo Foundation's control over Gentoo infrastructure (src: drobbins)
> > >     - https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd
> > 
> > While you're discussing securing our infrastructure you might want to
> > discuss what actions the Foundation intends to take in the event
> > somebody trespasses on our property, such as using it after being
> > expressly told not to.
> > 
> 
> Does the law of the NM state permit shooting trespassers?  And if not,
> can we please move it to one that does?
> 

For the record: this was a joke built on the unfortunate use
of 'trespassing' with reference to 'trespassers will be shoot'.

I would like to apologize to those who were unable to perceive it
as such.

To those who were perfectly capable of perceiving that, and yet choose
to abuse it for their own political ends, I can only suggest: find
a more productive use for your time.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2779 bytes --]

On 15-04-2018 01:42, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>>> The people behind the ban appear to be the usual suspects running
>>> ComRel/Council.
>>
>> Yet another friendly warning: this kind of unsubstantiated got you
>> already time off the mailing list.
>>
> 
> Can you please explain what I did wrong and point to the CoC to support
> your position? "Usual suspects" in this case is mgorny, ulm, dilfridge.
> Mgorny and ulm are on council, dilfridge runs ComRel.

Daniel,

please stop using language as "usual suspects" to question the integrity
or character of the people you are disagreeing with.

In this particular case, you're also "targetting" developers that are
not responsible for the decisions you're attacking. The Council had
nothing to do with wltjr's ban from the ml.
AFAIK, Ulrich never had any public interactions with William in the mls,
so I don't see how he can be accused of having any responsibility on
William's ban from the mailing list.
Finally, Andreas is the ComRel lead, but he doesn't run ComRel. As a
member of ComRel, I strongly object to that idea and can assure the
community that ComRel acts as a team where the members express opinions
and discuss matters trying to find consensus - we rarely all agree on a
subject, but we find a common ground that allows us to reach decisions.



On 15-04-2018 02:52, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org>
wrote:
>>
>>
>> In the mean time, Luca, is ComRel planning to take an actions on mgorny's
>> suggestion that William be shot? Even if tongue in cheek,r ac I am
sure you
>> realize it's inappropriate.
>>
>
> What's the matter, Luca? Cat caught your tongue?
>
> Since I was banned from a Gentoo mailing list for 7 days for using a
> naughty word, I am curious what will happen to mgorny for wishing out loud
> that someone experience a violent death.
>
> I know what would happen if I didn't bring attention to it: nothing.
> What is still likely to happen after I bring attention to it: nothing.

Just because you don't see any discussions about the issue you refer,
that doesn't mean ComRel isn't looking into it. Most of ComRel work is
done out of the "spotlights". When we're able to do our job in a very
effective way, people don't even notice our actions.
For this particular case, ComRel is already working on it and there is
an official complaint by William on bug 653192[1].

 [1] - https://bugs.gentoo.org/653192

In any case, the discussion about this issue was started independently
of William's bug or your post to this ml.

For the Gentoo ComRel team,

Best regards,
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Marta]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2938 bytes --]

unsubscribe

2018-04-15 16:28 GMT+02:00 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto <
jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org>:

> On 15-04-2018 01:42, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >>> The people behind the ban appear to be the usual suspects running
> >>> ComRel/Council.
> >>
> >> Yet another friendly warning: this kind of unsubstantiated got you
> >> already time off the mailing list.
> >>
> >
> > Can you please explain what I did wrong and point to the CoC to support
> > your position? "Usual suspects" in this case is mgorny, ulm, dilfridge.
> > Mgorny and ulm are on council, dilfridge runs ComRel.
>
> Daniel,
>
> please stop using language as "usual suspects" to question the integrity
> or character of the people you are disagreeing with.
>
> In this particular case, you're also "targetting" developers that are
> not responsible for the decisions you're attacking. The Council had
> nothing to do with wltjr's ban from the ml.
> AFAIK, Ulrich never had any public interactions with William in the mls,
> so I don't see how he can be accused of having any responsibility on
> William's ban from the mailing list.
> Finally, Andreas is the ComRel lead, but he doesn't run ComRel. As a
> member of ComRel, I strongly object to that idea and can assure the
> community that ComRel acts as a team where the members express opinions
> and discuss matters trying to find consensus - we rarely all agree on a
> subject, but we find a common ground that allows us to reach decisions.
>
>
>
> On 15-04-2018 02:52, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> In the mean time, Luca, is ComRel planning to take an actions on
> mgorny's
> >> suggestion that William be shot? Even if tongue in cheek,r ac I am
> sure you
> >> realize it's inappropriate.
> >>
> >
> > What's the matter, Luca? Cat caught your tongue?
> >
> > Since I was banned from a Gentoo mailing list for 7 days for using a
> > naughty word, I am curious what will happen to mgorny for wishing out
> loud
> > that someone experience a violent death.
> >
> > I know what would happen if I didn't bring attention to it: nothing.
> > What is still likely to happen after I bring attention to it: nothing.
>
> Just because you don't see any discussions about the issue you refer,
> that doesn't mean ComRel isn't looking into it. Most of ComRel work is
> done out of the "spotlights". When we're able to do our job in a very
> effective way, people don't even notice our actions.
> For this particular case, ComRel is already working on it and there is
> an official complaint by William on bug 653192[1].
>
>  [1] - https://bugs.gentoo.org/653192
>
> In any case, the discussion about this issue was started independently
> of William's bug or your post to this ml.
>
> For the Gentoo ComRel team,
>
> Best regards,
> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3852 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 131 bytes --]

El 15/04/18 a las 16:29, Marta escribió:
> unsubscribe
Just write an empty mail to |gentoo-nfp||+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org|

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 564 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 862 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3996 bytes --]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

>
> Nobody contacted us regarding his email and I was not even aware it was
> specifically targeting somebody.


I am going to make a couple of points and then drop this topic. And Luca, I
actually do expect that you will agree with all my points here. People in
senior positions in Gentoo are very aware of the rules and yet they violate
them. And yet they are very quick to use ComRel as a weapon against those
who are critical of them. People in senior positions in Gentoo *should know
the rules*! People in senior positions in Gentoo *should follow the rules*
and *be examples of the rules*. They should not be the ones taking
advantage of the rules. They should apply the rules to themselves and make
sure that they are sparkly-clean before enforcing them against others. The
CoC is primarily for those who are officially on the project, and then that
sets the standard for interaction with people who are not officially on the
project. But it's not intended to be a baseball bat that leaders of the
project use against the public.

Do you agree with me so far, if not my methods?

Suggesting that I need to follow CoC procedure to file complaints against
those who are leading the project is, well, sad. It may be the correct
approach, technically, but it is still a sad state of affairs. What I mean
is that it's sad that we are at this point, where these people can't keep
themselves personally accountable to the CoC they claim to uphold and
should embody themselves.


> You are willfully behaving in CoC-infringing ways on purpose and you
> stated that yourself.
>

Previously, yes. Now, no. I am attempting to follow the CoC.

Maybe what I think is needed at this point is some kind of rule as follows:
if you file a complaint with ComRel, you need to be able to claim that you
yourself are making a best effort to be an example of the CoC on lists,
IRC, etc. If ComRel did a bit of checking on this, it might be the
"equalizer" that prevents these rules from being one-sidedly enforced, and
prevent much of this "weaponizing" of the CoC.

Call this the "fairness" rule or the "anti-hypocrisy" rule, or the "don't
point fingers" rule. Something like this is very much needed. Right now,
there is a one-sided nature to the CoC enforcement that simply does not
work. It takes two sides to argue, and yet ComRel swoops in, makes a
determination regarding blame, and then one-sidedly enforces the CoC.
Really, both parties are to blame, to an extent, in all but the most
extreme cases.

Now, I am trying to abide by the CoC, be an example (I'm working on it) and
I have suggested what I think is a really good policy change which will
address the hypocrisy via procedural means, which means that I can hang up
my masked vigilante outfit and find other things to do. I do believe this
"fairness rule" is absolutely needed, as an alternative to kicking these
people from the project, which would be my preference and option of choice
as project founder and lead.

But as it now stands, I would say that having ComRel swoop in, make a
summary judgement of guilt, and implement punishment within the span of a
few minutes is essentially weaponization of the CoC and does nothing
whatsoever to bring civility, friendliness, and a positive development
environment to Gentoo. And it will also invite the Founder to return to
rant, hand wave, and post excessively. So, Luca, I ask you consider some
sort of "fairness" rule for the project regarding CoC enforcement, and
maybe become an advocate for this type of rule yourself and help it to be
implemented. Right now, under the current policies, watching the CoC
enforced to protect those who are themselves flagrant violators of it is
actually contributing to the inequity in the project and slowly but surely
undermining trust in the leadership structure, contributing to the rift
between Council and Foundation, and causing all sorts of other problems.

Best,

Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4768 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1107 bytes --]

On 15/04/18 15:28, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> Daniel,
> please stop using language as "usual suspects" to question the integrity
> or character of the people you are disagreeing with.
>
> In this particular case, you're also "targetting" developers that are
> not responsible for the decisions you're attacking. The Council had
> nothing to do with wltjr's ban from the ml.
> AFAIK, Ulrich never had any public interactions with William in the mls,
> so I don't see how he can be accused of having any responsibility on
> William's ban from the mailing list.
> Finally, Andreas is the ComRel lead, but he doesn't run ComRel. As a
> member of ComRel, I strongly object to that idea and can assure the
> community that ComRel acts as a team where the members express opinions
> and discuss matters trying to find consensus - we rarely all agree on a
> subject, but we find a common ground that allows us to reach decisions.
Last I saw, Andreas had given up the position of ComRel lead to Kristian
(K_F) .. I may have been mistaken, however .. or he may have reclaimed
it back ..


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4361 bytes --]

On 15/04/18 17:50, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org
> <mailto:lu_zero@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     Nobody contacted us regarding his email and I was not even aware
>     it was
>     specifically targeting somebody.
>
>
> I am going to make a couple of points and then drop this topic. And
> Luca, I actually do expect that you will agree with all my points
> here. People in senior positions in Gentoo are very aware of the rules
> and yet they violate them. And yet they are very quick to use ComRel
> as a weapon against those who are critical of them. People in senior
> positions in Gentoo *should know the rules*! People in senior
> positions in Gentoo *should follow the rules* and *be examples of the
> rules*. They should not be the ones taking advantage of the rules.
> They should apply the rules to themselves and make sure that they are
> sparkly-clean before enforcing them against others. The CoC is
> primarily for those who are officially on the project, and then that
> sets the standard for interaction with people who are not officially
> on the project. But it's not intended to be a baseball bat that
> leaders of the project use against the public.
>
> Do you agree with me so far, if not my methods?
>
> Suggesting that I need to follow CoC procedure to file complaints
> against those who are leading the project is, well, sad. It may be the
> correct approach, technically, but it is still a sad state of affairs.
> What I mean is that it's sad that we are at this point, where these
> people can't keep themselves personally accountable to the CoC they
> claim to uphold and should embody themselves.
>  
>
>     You are willfully behaving in CoC-infringing ways on purpose and you
>     stated that yourself.
>
>
> Previously, yes. Now, no. I am attempting to follow the CoC.
>
> Maybe what I think is needed at this point is some kind of rule as
> follows: if you file a complaint with ComRel, you need to be able to
> claim that you yourself are making a best effort to be an example of
> the CoC on lists, IRC, etc. If ComRel did a bit of checking on this,
> it might be the "equalizer" that prevents these rules from being
> one-sidedly enforced, and prevent much of this "weaponizing" of the CoC.
>
> Call this the "fairness" rule or the "anti-hypocrisy" rule, or the
> "don't point fingers" rule. Something like this is very much needed.
> Right now, there is a one-sided nature to the CoC enforcement that
> simply does not work. It takes two sides to argue, and yet ComRel
> swoops in, makes a determination regarding blame, and then one-sidedly
> enforces the CoC. Really, both parties are to blame, to an extent, in
> all but the most extreme cases.
>
> Now, I am trying to abide by the CoC, be an example (I'm working on
> it) and I have suggested what I think is a really good policy change
> which will address the hypocrisy via procedural means, which means
> that I can hang up my masked vigilante outfit and find other things to
> do. I do believe this "fairness rule" is absolutely needed, as an
> alternative to kicking these people from the project, which would be
> my preference and option of choice as project founder and lead.
>
> But as it now stands, I would say that having ComRel swoop in, make a
> summary judgement of guilt, and implement punishment within the span
> of a few minutes is essentially weaponization of the CoC and does
> nothing whatsoever to bring civility, friendliness, and a positive
> development environment to Gentoo. And it will also invite the Founder
> to return to rant, hand wave, and post excessively. So, Luca, I ask
> you consider some sort of "fairness" rule for the project regarding
> CoC enforcement, and maybe become an advocate for this type of rule
> yourself and help it to be implemented. Right now, under the current
> policies, watching the CoC enforced to protect those who are
> themselves flagrant violators of it is actually contributing to the
> inequity in the project and slowly but surely undermining trust in the
> leadership structure, contributing to the rift between Council and
> Foundation, and causing all sorts of other problems.
>
> Best,
>
> Daniel
Don't you just *hate* hypocrites .. I sure do ... >,<

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 6755 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 383 bytes --]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:31 AM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
>
> Don't you just *hate* hypocrites .. I sure do ... >,<
>

So, when I attempt to explain myself without launching any attacks on
individuals, and try to abide by the CoC, and I get this kind of reply from
a Gentoo developer, you can start to see the problem and the
double-standard that exists.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1050 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 638 bytes --]

On 15/04/18 18:55, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:31 AM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
>>> Don't you just *hate* hypocrites .. I sure do ... >,<
>>
>> So, when I attempt to explain myself without launching any attacks on
>> individuals, and try to abide by the CoC, and I get this kind of reply from
>> a Gentoo developer, you can start to see the problem and the double-standard
>> that exists.
> He's not a Gentoo developer.
Wait what, Lu_Zero isn't a gentoo developer? He sure has a gentoo.org
email address??


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 602 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 15. April 2018, 19:29:34 CEST schrieb M. J. Everitt:
>
> > and discuss matters trying to find consensus - we rarely all agree on a
> > subject, but we find a common ground that allows us to reach decisions.
> 
> Last I saw, Andreas had given up the position of ComRel lead to Kristian
> (K_F) .. I may have been mistaken, however .. or he may have reclaimed
> it back ..

That's what we have wiki project pages for.
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 558 bytes --]

On 15/04/18 19:48, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 15. April 2018, 19:29:34 CEST schrieb M. J. Everitt:
>>> and discuss matters trying to find consensus - we rarely all agree on a
>>> subject, but we find a common ground that allows us to reach decisions.
>> Last I saw, Andreas had given up the position of ComRel lead to Kristian
>> (K_F) .. I may have been mistaken, however .. or he may have reclaimed
>> it back ..
> That's what we have wiki project pages for.
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel
>
Thanks for the update!


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Luca Barbato]

On 16/04/2018 01:50, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Nobody contacted us regarding his email and I was not even aware
>> it was specifically targeting somebody.
> 
> 
> I am going to make a couple of points and then drop this topic. And 
> Luca, I actually do expect that you will agree with all my points 
> here. People in senior positions in Gentoo are very aware of the 
> rules and yet they violate them. And yet they are very quick to use 
> ComRel as a weapon against those who are critical of them.

No, it did not happen and is not happening now.

> People in senior positions in Gentoo *should know the rules*! People 
> in senior positions in Gentoo *should follow the rules* and *be 
> examples of the rules*. They should not be the ones taking advantage 
> of the rules. They should apply the rules to themselves and make
> sure that they are sparkly-clean before enforcing them against
> others. The CoC is primarily for those who are officially on the
> project, and then that sets the standard for interaction with people
> who are not officially on the project. But it's not intended to be a
> baseball bat that leaders of the project use against the public.
> 
> Do you agree with me so far, if not my methods?

Your statements are misguided.

The CoC is not a weapon since the way it is written you have to first
make an effort to make the infringing party AWARE that you feel that
there is a breach, then contact comrel if the party ignores you, then we
try to have the parties come to an understanding if the violation is not
blatant.

Only after that we have to take some more direct action.

Your blatant small breaches had me warn you once as per

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel#Disciplinary_Actions_for_direct_CoC_violations

> Suggesting that I need to follow CoC procedure to file complaints 
> against those who are leading the project is, well, sad. It may be 
> the correct approach, technically, but it is still a sad state of 
> affairs.

You should really read that wiki page, it is all written there...

>> You are willfully behaving in CoC-infringing ways on purpose and 
>> you stated that yourself.
>> 
> 
> Previously, yes. Now, no. I am attempting to follow the CoC.

I'm glad you are now.

> Maybe what I think is needed at this point is some kind of rule as 
> follows: if you file a complaint with ComRel, you need to be able to 
> claim that you yourself are making a best effort to be an example of 
> the CoC on lists, IRC, etc. If ComRel did a bit of checking on this, 
> it might be the "equalizer" that prevents these rules from being 
> one-sidedly enforced, and prevent much of this "weaponizing" of the 
> CoC.

You base assumption are pretty wrong and this and the following
statements are quite unfair.

Our code of conduct requires involved parties to give at least a try to
get along. Comrel main task is to facilitate this.

Only if we have serious breaches (e.g. something that could be even
actionable by law enforcers) or repeated breaches (or ignoring our
warnings) we have to act in a way that is more public.

Even in that case, because of the privacy regulations AND the fact
reporters would be open to retaliation if known, the details available
to the public are scarce.

lu

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 460 bytes --]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

>
> Our code of conduct requires involved parties to give at least a try to
> get along. Comrel main task is to facilitate this.
>

Sorry, I do think that is so absolutely not the reality that the answer
would be laughable if it weren't so sad. If that is the goal, it is very
clear that you are "doing it wrong."

Will no longer be replying to this thread, if I can help it.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 839 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2153 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org>
wrote:

>
> Will no longer be replying to this thread, if I can help it.
>

OK, I am going to post one more reply. Here's my opinion on the whole ban
situation.

This is the gentoo-nfp list, which is on Foundation infrastructure, and is
supposed to allow discussion related to the Foundation. ComRel is not an
entity that is accountable to the Foundation, and by banning me on this
list, you are infringing my right as a Foundation member to offer feedback
related to the direction of Gentoo Foundation. This is particularly
egregious as I am the founding member of the Foundation, and the project
that it oversees, and clearly my opinion holds some value, whether you
agree with it or not.

Therefore, I will consider any further action against me on this list, to
silence me or otherwise prevent me from expressing my views, as a violation
of my rights as a Foundation member and I would consider that as something
that I could pursue legally. One of the downsides of ComRel having no
accountability or tie to the Foundation is you really have no authority to
enforce any bans here. The CoC is not part of the Foundation's bylaws.

I am going to extend this to wltjr. Whatever you think of him, he is a
former trustee. His opinions and posts are important due to his experience
leading the Foundation in the past, and whatever you think of him
personally, he does care about Gentoo and has a successful track record as
a trustee. Therefore, I consider his ban to be inappropriate and frankly
disruptive to further improvements of the Foundation. If you don't like
something or other that he did in the past, then you will need to treat
that as a completely separate issue, and you can deal with that however you
want as long as it is addressed solely within your scope of influence,
which is "gentoo developer land."

I would also add that any Foundation members should not be banned on this
list. Really, any gentoo list or infrastructure -- but this list in
particular. However, you are free to enforce the CoC on GENTOO DEVELOPERS,
over whom the CoC has jurisdiction.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2743 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org> wrote:
>
> by banning me on this
> list, you are infringing my right as a Foundation member to offer feedback
> related to the direction of Gentoo Foundation.

You do not need to post on a mailing list to do so.  You could simply
contact the trustees via email/etc.  The bylaws do not mention this
list as the only way to conduct official business, and in fact refer
to other ways for members to inform the Foundation of official
business.  Not having access to this list does not infringe on
anyone's legal rights as a member.

I own stock in various corporations.  This does not give me the
unconditional right to access their property, or use whatever social
media or communications channels they may have.  If I were disruptive
it wouldn't even give me an unconditional right to attend an official
meeting of stockholders.  If I accumulated sufficient votes I could
force a corporation to put a proposal to a vote against its wishes,
and the same right is afforded to any Foundation member (they need
signatures from 10% of the membership to do so as far as I can tell).
Even this doesn't give me the right to just send arbitrary
communications to other shareholders - at best I'd get to put a single
reasonable-length proposal in a proxy statement, right next to a
rebuttal provided by the company with no ability for me to further
respond.

Whatever rights the Trustees may have to oversee the operations of
this list or the servers it is hosted on do not extend to random
members of the Foundation.

I'm not really sure why we'd expect this list to be different from any
other Gentoo list.  They all use the same infrastructure, and I don't
see why we wouldn't want to enforce the CoC in the same way
everywhere.  If the CoC is bad then it should be fixed.  If it is good
then it should be followed.  If its enforcement is bad that should be
fixed, and if not it should be allowed to function.  These are not
things we as individuals get to make unilateral decisions on.

IMO it would make sense to harmonize Foundation membership with CoC
enforcement, as it does not make sense to ban somebody from
participating in the community but allowing them to vote for our
board.  However, this is somewhat tangential to this specific issue,
as is the details of how they might be reconciled.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > by banning me on this
> > list, you are infringing my right as a Foundation member to offer
> feedback
> > related to the direction of Gentoo Foundation.
>
> You do not need to post on a mailing list to do so.  You could simply
> contact the trustees via email/etc.


I could, but 1) this is clearly the official list of the Gentoo Foundation
2) ComRel has no authority over members. It is run by Council, which is a
developer-focused organization 3) Foundation is in control of Gentoo
infrastructure, not Council 4) ComRel is clearly acting out of its
authority by policing this list and banning the Foundation and project
founder as well as former trustees.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1267 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 729 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org>
wrote:


> I could, but 1) this is clearly the official list of the Gentoo Foundation
> 2) ComRel has no authority over members. It is run by Council, which is a
> developer-focused organization 3) Foundation is in control of Gentoo
> infrastructure, not Council 4) ComRel is clearly acting out of its
> authority by policing this list and banning the Foundation and project
> founder as well as former trustees.
>
> by "out of its authority" I mean "beyond the scope of its authority." If I
am being disruptive to the Foundation and the trustees, the Foundation
itself can contact me regarding this. Not ComRel. It is not an arm of the
Foundation.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1234 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Raymond Jennings]

Personally I think comrel SHOULD be an arm of the foundation, as it's
an HR function.  For much the same reason as I think that infra should
also be an arm of the foundation, that and the fact that infra is
managing hardware owned by the foundation itself.

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I could, but 1) this is clearly the official list of the Gentoo Foundation
>> 2) ComRel has no authority over members. It is run by Council, which is a
>> developer-focused organization 3) Foundation is in control of Gentoo
>> infrastructure, not Council 4) ComRel is clearly acting out of its authority
>> by policing this list and banning the Foundation and project founder as well
>> as former trustees.
>>
> by "out of its authority" I mean "beyond the scope of its authority." If I
> am being disruptive to the Foundation and the trustees, the Foundation
> itself can contact me regarding this. Not ComRel. It is not an arm of the
> Foundation.
>
> -Daniel

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3445 bytes --]

On 18-04-16 11:05:33, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Will no longer be replying to this thread, if I can help it.
> >
> 
> OK, I am going to post one more reply. Here's my opinion on the whole ban
> situation.
> 
> This is the gentoo-nfp list, which is on Foundation infrastructure, and is
> supposed to allow discussion related to the Foundation. ComRel is not an
> entity that is accountable to the Foundation, and by banning me on this
> list, you are infringing my right as a Foundation member to offer feedback
> related to the direction of Gentoo Foundation. This is particularly
> egregious as I am the founding member of the Foundation, and the project
> that it oversees, and clearly my opinion holds some value, whether you
> agree with it or not.
> 
> Therefore, I will consider any further action against me on this list, to
> silence me or otherwise prevent me from expressing my views, as a violation
> of my rights as a Foundation member and I would consider that as something
> that I could pursue legally. One of the downsides of ComRel having no
> accountability or tie to the Foundation is you really have no authority to
> enforce any bans here. The CoC is not part of the Foundation's bylaws.
> 
> I am going to extend this to wltjr. Whatever you think of him, he is a
> former trustee. His opinions and posts are important due to his experience
> leading the Foundation in the past, and whatever you think of him
> personally, he does care about Gentoo and has a successful track record as
> a trustee. Therefore, I consider his ban to be inappropriate and frankly
> disruptive to further improvements of the Foundation. If you don't like
> something or other that he did in the past, then you will need to treat
> that as a completely separate issue, and you can deal with that however you
> want as long as it is addressed solely within your scope of influence,
> which is "gentoo developer land."
> 
> I would also add that any Foundation members should not be banned on this
> list. Really, any gentoo list or infrastructure -- but this list in
> particular. However, you are free to enforce the CoC on GENTOO DEVELOPERS,
> over whom the CoC has jurisdiction.
> 

First IANAL.

The rights of foundation members are not as much as you seem to think.

It basically says that you have to be able to vote. (see section 3.10 of
the bylaws).  At the moment, voting by all members is only scheduled for
the election of trustees.  In that case you can submit your vote via
email to the trustees alias.

Notice of the meeting is primarilly done via the topic in the trustees
irc channel.  The nfp and project mailings are secondary and informitive
only.  Even then, you can still access the lists in read only mode.

While I could not find refrence to the ability to submit meeting topics,
I also could not find where it states the Trustees / Foundation must
take up those topics.  In any case you are still able to submit the
topics via email to the trustees alias (as can be seen from the items I
added that don't have coresponding nfp mail list links).

Finally, as to wltjr's ban.  At the moment he is not a member and has no
'rights'.  Further, even if he was a member, given the above, his bans
would not affect his ability to vote.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 500 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
wrote:

>
> First IANAL.
>
> The rights of foundation members are not as much as you seem to think.
>

Foundation is a membership organization. We use this list as a means to
communicate. I will stand by my position that ComRel has no business
policing this list in particular, and Gentoo infrastructure in general as
it relates to NON-DEVELOPER MEMBERS. (emphasis added :)

Noted that wltjr is not a member.

Best,

Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 950 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 805 bytes --]

On 18-04-16 13:06:37, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > First IANAL.
> >
> > The rights of foundation members are not as much as you seem to think.
> >
> 
> Foundation is a membership organization. We use this list as a means to
> communicate. I will stand by my position that ComRel has no business
> policing this list in particular, and Gentoo infrastructure in general as
> it relates to NON-DEVELOPER MEMBERS. (emphasis added :)
> 

I tend to agree that comrel should not police this particular list.
That does not mean that this list is provided as a forum for members to
talk (or that any forum needs to be provided by the foundation).  Again,
IANAL :D

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 958 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
wrote:
>
>
> I tend to agree that comrel should not police this particular list.
> That does not mean that this list is provided as a forum for members to
> talk (or that any forum needs to be provided by the foundation).  Again,
> IANAL :D


I do think a forum for members to talk is necessary, considering the
distributed nature of the members, and it's my understanding that this is
one of the official forums for members to talk. Not about any random thing,
but of issues related to the Foundation.

Also, for non-members, I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed to talk. In
this case, I'm specifically thinking about wltjr. If the trustees don't
have an issue with him being on this list, I think his ban should be
lifted. He was clearly once a member of the Foundation and as a former
trustee, he does have information related to the Foundation that is useful.

Best,

Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1399 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Matthew Thode
<prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I tend to agree that comrel should not police this particular list.

I think you were just stating an opinion here and not announcing any
kind of official policy, correct?

That aside, I'd suggest that you consider the implications if this were policy:

1.  Is the CoC still in force on this list?  If not, are there ANY
standards of behavior in force, and if so where are they defined?
2.  If somebody were to have a concern about violations of any
standards in force (CoC or otherwise), where should they direct these
concerns?
3.  Who will deal with any concerns that are raised, and what
processes will they follow, and what recourse, if any, is there if
there is disagreement with the outcome?
4.  What expectations of privacy/secrecy should anybody have if they
raise a concern?

IMO you're going to quickly find that if the CoC doesn't apply then
you're just going to have to invent another CoC to take its place, or
deal with pandemonium.  Likewise if Comrel isn't the body enforcing
the -nfp CoC then you're just going to have to invent another Comrel
to take its place.

If the concern is that the CoC is broken in some way, wouldn't it make
more sense to fix it everywhere than to have two?  Likewise, if the
concern is that Comrel is broken in some way, wouldn't it make more
sense to fix it than to create another?

If the concern is that you're not sure you trust the individuals in
the current system, why would somebody else have more reason to trust
the individuals in the new system, if the only thing changing are the
names?  If the changes are instead to make the process better, then
why wouldn't we want to apply the better process everywhere?

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2625 bytes --]

On 18-04-16 17:25:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Matthew Thode
> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > I tend to agree that comrel should not police this particular list.
> 
> I think you were just stating an opinion here and not announcing any
> kind of official policy, correct?
> 

Correct.

> That aside, I'd suggest that you consider the implications if this were policy:
> 
> 1.  Is the CoC still in force on this list?  If not, are there ANY
> standards of behavior in force, and if so where are they defined?
> 2.  If somebody were to have a concern about violations of any
> standards in force (CoC or otherwise), where should they direct these
> concerns?
> 3.  Who will deal with any concerns that are raised, and what
> processes will they follow, and what recourse, if any, is there if
> there is disagreement with the outcome?
> 4.  What expectations of privacy/secrecy should anybody have if they
> raise a concern?
> 
> IMO you're going to quickly find that if the CoC doesn't apply then
> you're just going to have to invent another CoC to take its place, or
> deal with pandemonium.  Likewise if Comrel isn't the body enforcing
> the -nfp CoC then you're just going to have to invent another Comrel
> to take its place.
> 
> If the concern is that the CoC is broken in some way, wouldn't it make
> more sense to fix it everywhere than to have two?  Likewise, if the
> concern is that Comrel is broken in some way, wouldn't it make more
> sense to fix it than to create another?
> 
> If the concern is that you're not sure you trust the individuals in
> the current system, why would somebody else have more reason to trust
> the individuals in the new system, if the only thing changing are the
> names?  If the changes are instead to make the process better, then
> why wouldn't we want to apply the better process everywhere?
> 

What I'd like to see (not fully thought out and all) is the following.

CoC is not enforced on the list by comrel, but comrel can report what
they beleive to be CoC violations to the Trustees.  The Trustees can
take action if they believe necessary.

While I don't believe that the nfp list needs to be available as a
communication forum for foundation members, it would be nice to have it
available.  I suppose some statement would need to be made as to the
purpose (role) the nfp list plays, stating that it is not a right but a
privlige to post to it.   One that can be revoked at any time for any
reason (this phrase because legal shit sucks).

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2055 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
wrote:

>
> What I'd like to see (not fully thought out and all) is the following.
>
> CoC is not enforced on the list by comrel, but comrel can report what
> they beleive to be CoC violations to the Trustees.  The Trustees can

take action if they believe necessary.
>

We will see if this post goes through. I was just re-banned on
gentoo-project: https://bugs.gentoo.org/653338 . This appears retaliatory.

Matt, I think you are perfectly capable of moderating a low-volume mailing
list.

ComRel makes things worse. They don't participate in or moderate the
conversation. They are like a modern mailing-list gestapo -- when called,
they swoop in, attack the "reported on" party, and threaten to ban them.
Also, it is wholly inappropriate to have ComRel banning me while I try to
point out issues with ComRel. This is fascism, where they are just using
their 'policing' capability, which is supposed to bring civility, to go
after those who oppose them.

Furthermore, their meddling in Foundation matters is illegal. They have no
authority to "moderate" me on Gentoo Foundation infrastructure. Under New
Mexico Statute 53-8-98, it is an unauthorized assumption of corporate
power. "All persons who assume to act as a corporation without authority so
to do shall be jointly and severally liable for all debts and liabilities
incurred or arising as a result thereof." They have no authority. They are
meddling in areas where they have absolutely no scope.

The Foundation absolutely requires the ability to communicate with its
members without interference by ComRel and rogue developers. Right now,
ComRel is attempting to disrupt this ability.

Rich, you actually seem like a nice person but I tend to have a strong
negative reaction to nearly everything you post due to its tangential
nature and the fact that you seem to make even the most basic things
incredibly complex. *The Foundation is capable of moderating a mailing
list*!!! And ComRel has no authority here.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2817 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1015 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> What I'd like to see (not fully thought out and all) is the following.
>>
>> CoC is not enforced on the list by comrel, but comrel can report what
>> they beleive to be CoC violations to the Trustees.  The Trustees can
>
> take action if they believe necessary.
>
>
I also see that there are moderators listed for several of the official
mailing lists :
https://www.gentoo.org/get-involved/mailing-lists/all-lists.html

While the moderator names appear out-of-date, I would suggest allowing the
moderators of these lists to do their job. Moderation is a much gentler and
effective way to run a list than calling in a ComRel raid.

And I was going to suggest that ComRel lay off of -project too, as it is a
non-technical list, and potentially outside the scope of ComRel. But before
I could post that idea, I was banned from -project.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2133 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 637 bytes --]

>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Matthew Thode wrote:

> What I'd like to see (not fully thought out and all) is the
> following.

> CoC is not enforced on the list by comrel, but comrel can report
> what they beleive to be CoC violations to the Trustees. The Trustees
> can take action if they believe necessary.

I don't think that adding a further indirection for disciplinary
measures would be helpful. At the least, it would delay any actions.
So, I would suggest to leave this to ComRel, and if you absolutely
must, make trustees rather then council the instance of appeal for the
gentoo-nfp list.

Ulrich (not speaking for the council)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [gentoo-nfp] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - update1

[Raymond Jennings]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Matthew Thode wrote:
>
>> What I'd like to see (not fully thought out and all) is the
>> following.
>
>> CoC is not enforced on the list by comrel, but comrel can report
>> what they beleive to be CoC violations to the Trustees. The Trustees
>> can take action if they believe necessary.
>
> I don't think that adding a further indirection for disciplinary
> measures would be helpful. At the least, it would delay any actions.
> So, I would suggest to leave this to ComRel, and if you absolutely
> must, make trustees rather then council the instance of appeal for the
> gentoo-nfp list.
>
> Ulrich (not speaking for the council)

My opinion is that -nfp is a special case