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 1JxmAo-00079n-HB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 18 May 2008 16:55:50 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CC59E055E; Sun, 18 May 2008 16:55:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56988E055E for ; Sun, 18 May 2008 16:55:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.211] (c-76-18-195-255.hsd1.fl.comcast.net [76.18.195.255]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEA80671D7 for ; Sun, 18 May 2008 16:55:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008] From: "William L. Thomson Jr." To: gentoo-project In-Reply-To: <20080518174401.12aa9e30@snowcone> References: <20080508233328.GA8896@comet> <20080515204913.GA22285@comet> <20080515220543.5c5a2c03@snowcone> <482CB0B2.6090702@gentoo.org> <20080516164612.GA14234@comet> <482DF281.6010208@gentoo.org> <20080516213454.538ce4e8@anaconda.krait.us> <7c612fc60805161611w48d9e134m7437c4a29f33d79a@mail.gmail.com> <20080517001849.4802ceec@googlemail.com> <20080518105649.GC17371@basestar> <20080518160110.60840c3e@snowcone> <1211124360.5569.17.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> <20080518163144.312ed2d9@googlemail.com> <483055B9.4080107@gentoo.org> <20080518171851.51f7df3d@snowcone> <1211128694.5569.91.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> <20080518174401.12aa9e30@snowcone> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-M97wInrfvFs2ROLmMwCM" Organization: Gentoo Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 12:55:39 -0400 Message-Id: <1211129739.5569.108.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.0 X-Archives-Salt: 3ad14ceb-ff70-4097-87fc-4d96428028b9 X-Archives-Hash: bef5dd2a404d5bca828ff7b6d32efa0b --=-M97wInrfvFs2ROLmMwCM Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 17:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:38:14 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > It's no wonder a technical council, did not show up to a meeting to > > discuss social issues. Duh ;) Part of the reason I dislike punishment > > for this so much. This was not a technical meeting, where a major > > technical decision lie on the table going unresolved. >=20 > The Council holding secret meetings and collaborating with the devrel > lead behind the rest of devrel's backs is certainly a major issue... Then that should be grounds for removal. Not using that behind another clause of them missing a meeting to enforce what you want. For example, when I got a ticket for wreckless driving. When the police officer was accusing me of speeding, unsafe lane changes, and failure to use my signal. When I took it to court, even the judge stated. They could not use wreckless driving to encompass and enforce other infractions I might have committed. Thus it seems the real issue at hand is aspects of how the council has conducted itself. With this missed meeting, as just an excuse to forcibly bring about change there. Which only a small fraction seem to want or have issue with. Some of which aren't devs, so that fraction is even smaller. > As > for technical... The Council got itself involved in non-technical > things by kicking this whole mess off in the first place. Which council? Did this council create the CoC or make the matter fall under the council? > You'll note that Diego has said that he thinks it's the most important > thing the Council has ever done Is that an individual statement, or one coming from the entire council? Was he stating that representing the council or himself? > (although the Council has also said > that it wasn't them that did it -- one of the things that they were > supposed to be clarifying at the meeting...). Well I think this is where the trustees should step in a bit. We likely need to meet with the council and see why they feel the CoC should fall under them, rather than the GSC and under the trustees/foundation. I have disliked such matters falling under them since before I was even a trustee or considered such. It's just not technical stuff. I think the reason the CoC fell under the council, was because of a MIA board of trustees in past years. Also could be because the council is seen has having power, and the trustees? --=20 William L. Thomson Jr. amd64/Java/Trustees Gentoo Foundation --=-M97wInrfvFs2ROLmMwCM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkgwX4sACgkQPrChP8zZLyYSWwCZAb/2ImqSDzHN0JKz+wl5eU7H 4dIAoLJKqDDpTy4dkplfGmkInHxoogvG =UmyN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-M97wInrfvFs2ROLmMwCM-- -- gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list