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 524A51382C5 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:52:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28763E0BF4; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:52:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mo6-p05-ob.smtp.rzone.de (mo6-p05-ob.smtp.rzone.de [IPv6:2a01:238:20a:202:5305::9]) (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 C6AA8E0BF0 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:52:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1518490366; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=akhuettel.de; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:References:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From:X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH; bh=5+a5RNhrFc+2PBwJ6zq31v955ZrssoMUDza4LKP4Pnc=; b=mmJpAgO4kbDCCT8tHzdojIfzFPeTumMwjSyo5e040qqP5k87HifDGxgXbgzNhexG7S y65jEVq47TyOplG0v7VyZ4qhVSu7Iof2zZDuOnj9z3tMCcVEufmFfQOX1edZ2ouJHLJi Zeo7bSlDoeC2t+6sPb1DUNNHfsl9/yNjIIHjQGqVyig5Nx8m/VMZ0ar/UVWPo5aQ6xRo eelIxoFe6UzA15qVLKHZkLh0JHutsh3zwVIwwWvdj2GAmluldrGZ9oPvnU58AEGTsXsC LU5EIKNbTviZY5vbTuQk6bvXOF7y8fo+EzohaB60iQeCzrfKlIgQc5SaYcBEIGg1wsXK VOEQ== X-RZG-AUTH: :IW0NeWCpcPchHrcnS4ebzBgQnKHTmkWA4CWORNSv8N53ayTI3oekdh1yMl8f2Fxo X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo05 Received: from porto.localnet (95-130-164-57.hsi.glasfaser-ostbayern.de [95.130.164.57]) by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 42.18 AUTH) with ESMTPSA id v00354u1D2qk5nS (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (curve secp521r1 with 521 ECDH bits, eq. 15360 bits RSA)) (Client did not present a certificate) for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 03:52:46 +0100 (CET) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 03:52:45 +0100 Message-ID: <1887835.qtZys95SFQ@porto> Organization: Gentoo Linux In-Reply-To: References: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> <20180212021651.GA7522@linux1.home> 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Archives-Salt: ad854df8-c0c7-4d62-bfb1-db5e64d51cce X-Archives-Hash: 5d40b872f55ab05ea833f32ae99010c7 Am Montag, 12. Februar 2018, 03:29:49 CET schrieb Rich Freeman: >=20 > However, in the past the Council members who were on Comrel disagreed > with this and recused themselves. They can do that, but I think it is > harmful. I'm sure many reading my email think that my approach would > be harmful. That's ok - it is fine if a majority of Gentoo devs are > wrong on something. :) >=20 Rich,=20 on an abstract level I agree fully with you on this. There's two things=20 though. 1) Had I not recused myself in the appeal case a year (?) ago, then a=20 discussion like the one now would have cast doubt on the appeal result. Sin= ce=20 we like to senselessly bikeshed just about everything, that was predictable= =2E=20 So the outcome was cleaner this way. 2) It was rather amusing to leisurely stand on the side for a change and se= e=20 you all wade through the mud, without having to do it myself once more. I=20 think you can appreciate that since you handled nearly all the corresponden= ce=20 for the remaining "non-recused" council in that case... Cheers,=20 Andreas =2D-=20 Andreas K. H=FCttel dilfridge@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux developer=20 (council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)