On Sat, 2019-06-15 at 11:46 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
> > There wasn't even a single 'please note that the meeting will be held
> > 2 hours later than usual'.
> 
> Indeed, that could have been more prominent. Note that normally we try
> to emphasise such changes (just picking two examples, there are more):
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/49e642140724ad0d22847e4e6798cc84
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev-announce/message/6b32250b8bf53cd3016331aebd75c956
> 
> > Secret meetings, secret decisions
> > =================================
> > This year's Council has been engaged in accepting secret agenda item
> > concerning commit access of a pseudonymous dev, holding secret meetings,
> > over it and making secret decisions that were never announced.
> > At the same time, they managed to blame Undertakers for not knowing
> > about any of that.
> > To cite a Bugzilla comment on the topic:
> > > You are aware that we have a special situation here? Most of
> > > the inactivity period falls between the acceptance of GLEP 76
> > > (in September/October 2018) and the Council sorting out a way for him
> > > how to proceed (in April 2019).  [...]  [11]
> 
> This has been taken out of context, with the rest of the comment (about
> not blaming Undertakers) being omitted:
> 
> > I don't see any accusation there. It is a motion drafted during the
> > meeting, so please give us some leeway if it isn't the most beautiful
> > wording in the world. 
> > Are you aware of those April 2019 proceedings?  Because there's no trace
> > of any decision in meeting logs.
> 
> Of course there cannot be a public log of a private meeting where
> personal matters of a dev are discussed. And how do you know if any
> votes were taken during that meeting? Maybe there weren't?
> 
> What do you suggest? Should the Council refuse any requests of a
> developer to discuss personal issues?

If the Council meeting resulted in situation change from A. a dev being
apparently unable to contribute to B. a dev being able to contribute,
then it counts as a change to me.  It doesn't matter whether it was
taken as a vote.

Don't you think others who possibly are in similar situation would like
to know about it?  Don't you think it's double standards to set rules
for general population, then privately admit loophole for a specific
developer?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny