From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 856051387FD for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:20:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D4C84E0AC2; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:20:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from andre.telenet-ops.be (andre.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F93E0ABB for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:20:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([94.226.55.127]) by andre.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id miL31n00G2khLEN01iL3rT; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 20:20:03 +0200 Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 20:19:26 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: hasufell@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08 Message-ID: <20140406201926.4544d796@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <53419371.1090600@gentoo.org> References: <53342A5F.70903@gentoo.org> <201404061435.00789.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <53414CD2.4030100@gentoo.org> <53416E80.40605@gentoo.org> <534172D6.6040204@gentoo.org> <20140406181722.615ab6f4@gentoo.org> <53418884.2070000@gentoo.org> <20140406192253.1440d5b7@gentoo.org> <53419371.1090600@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 72b3f15a-b8fc-4e28-af18-686ff62f885a X-Archives-Hash: ee2e60a3392560c431fb3b9b352689fc On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:48:33 +0000 hasufell wrote: > Tom Wijsman: > > On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:01:56 +0000 > > hasufell wrote: > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA512 > >> > >> Tom Wijsman: > >>>> Is this what I can expect from sticking around in Gentoo? > >>> > >>> When people (yes, multiple) resort to reverting commits and/or > >>> filing ComRel bugs instead of appropriate discussion and > >>> escalation ... yes. > >>> > >> > >> No, this does not conform with CoC. QA members don't have a special > >> right to be insulting on a non-technical level, even if people > >> don't follow their policies. > > > > Alexander talks about expectation, not about conformity; but if > > multiple people resort to reverting commits, or don't do > > appropriate discussion, that would indeed not be conform with CoC > > as it is quite disrespectful. > > > >> I am used to rude/blunt language and often prefer it over other > >> forms... but there is a line when it becomes random abusive > >> language. > > > > +1 Note that we're not disagreeing here. > > So you are saying we all can expect abusive language from QA members > in the case of someone not respecting some policy? To be clear; for QA members, I hope they would not act as such, but I cannot guarantee that for every individual in and outside the QA team. > That's a weird statement. Only when you interpret expectations as actions that'll happen; but for it to happen, people need to go really far, that's where common sense, policy, other QA members, ComRel and Council come in to draw the line. > I am not sure if you really meant it... that's why I am asking. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D