Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08

[hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>]

Tom Wijsman:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:48:33 +0000
> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Tom Wijsman:
>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:01:56 +0000
>>> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> 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.
> 

That's not good enough at all. I expect more clear words from the QA
lead on this.