<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Luca Barbato <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lu_zero@gentoo.org" target="_blank">lu_zero@gentoo.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">> The people behind the ban appear to be the usual suspects running<br> > ComRel/Council.<br> <br> </span>Yet another friendly warning: this kind of unsubstantiated got you<br> already time off the mailing list.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Wltjr managed to get its longer time off the ml because of its repeated<br> small breaches of the CoC and ban evasions.<br> <br> You seem to try to follow his lead with all your strength.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Please be consistent, and don't be part of the problem.</div><div><br></div><div>-Daniel <br></div></div></div></div>