From: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>
To: Thomas Anderson <gentoofan23@gentoo.org>
Cc: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Decision on recent developer retirements
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:32:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080826153230.GB7081@comet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080823113935.GB6392@spoc.mpa.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1970 bytes --]
On 07:39 Sat 23 Aug , Thomas Anderson wrote:
> Let me see if I understand the council's reasoning...
>
> If dev A gets retired by devrel for insufficient reasons(what those
> reasons are are irrelevant to this discussion), and his behaviour does
> not change after his retirement(as he never had wrong behaviour), then
> dev A's appeal is rejected?
Let's start at the beginning of what you've said here. First, you claim
the reasons are insufficient. If the lead of devrel and all 7 council
members disagree with that, you might want to reset your idea of what
levels of abuse are acceptable in Gentoo.
Second, we apparently failed to make it clear enough for non-English
natives exactly how this worked. There are basically 3 possible
positions to have on anything:
1. Clear belief that an issue should be approved
2. Clear belief that an issue should be denied
3. Ambiguous: based on the observed evidence, it could go either way.
The description of which times we would go with the original decision is
to explain what happens under scenario 3 above. This applies to not just
devrel but to any team or person within Gentoo making a decision that
gets appealed. If there's not a good enough reason (in our judgment) to
change the original decision, we leave it.
> Now, some may say that this is the reason Council reviewed the
> evidence(did that really happen?). To prove my point, I'd like to ask
> the council(and anyone else interested in devrel/council policy)
> what reasons it found, looking through the evidence
> provided, that any of the three developers were a security risk, I
> certainly didn't see any.
I found no good reason to reverse any of the decisions. The closest
thing I saw was some ambiguity, and that is specifically what we decided
to defer to devrel on as I described above.
--
Thanks,
Donnie
Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-26 15:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20080821001141.GA27708@aerie.halcy0n.com>
2008-08-23 11:39 ` [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Decision on recent developer retirements Thomas Anderson
2008-08-24 11:54 ` [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-council] " Thomas Anderson
2008-08-25 6:31 ` Alec Warner
2008-08-26 15:32 ` Donnie Berkholz [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080826153230.GB7081@comet \
--to=dberkholz@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoofan23@gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox