From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2A57138334 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:21:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D61E4E08F7; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C9ADE08F5 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A88BC34618C; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:21:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <07d07a2b4e95087d6bfe922d01ac164dacff0a5c.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Why should you *not* vote on existing Council members From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:21:11 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-xtK5t0SV0yLbmDHoB48V" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: 05819365-7ba3-4e94-888c-814f43a377f4 X-Archives-Hash: 9dc67bdbebf845b9d82eb8107740338f --=-xtK5t0SV0yLbmDHoB48V Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2019-06-15 at 11:46 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > There wasn't even a single 'please note that the meeting will be held > > 2 hours later than usual'. >=20 > 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/49e642140724ad0d22847e= 4e6798cc84 > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev-announce/message/6b32250b8bf53cd30= 16331aebd75c956 >=20 > > Secret meetings, secret decisions > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > 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] >=20 > This has been taken out of context, with the rest of the comment (about > not blaming Undertakers) being omitted: >=20 > > 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.=20 > > Are you aware of those April 2019 proceedings? Because there's no trac= e > > of any decision in meeting logs. >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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? --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-xtK5t0SV0yLbmDHoB48V Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGTBAABCgB9FiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAl0ExpdfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEM3 NkE4NDUwOTQwOThEMjhDQzhCMjZDNTYzOUFEQUUyMzI5RTI0MEUACgkQY5ra4jKe JA5qUAgAgiJqXQ5yytZel9se9zF/Fn1/QId7VXPzaIV+cBDWizCXByKozT14pwoF CIhmZTN/WKxIlXKE5YRrl7PwFUWA1ktG9qUZ5jSgfAa3Au/ZkWR4uylI10iWvzED mXF/udOjI3jwqu1SviPjK74rB+WmVPugpEKq91dD6H1qnn07to8VJv06fZf1PPbl fvBS/C/6ub4BiFH99qU7qAjzGuT6zuUp0sSwY8UHTHHGUdZdGS6hN/rn9CORtI6O IE2oQLPIO4zG/wu40VDHjM6TODHaRrU3Pvwa5jH+Uv4j/3v6RD9Exa0MMOKK7jvL F0mUb40Sd6t10rXmEHg6O50ANlBAZg== =EmgF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-xtK5t0SV0yLbmDHoB48V--