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 B11D9138334 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 04:12:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 55C46E0893; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 04:12:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (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 E5126E088C for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 04:12:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.0.17] (cpe-72-227-68-175.maine.res.rr.com [72.227.68.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: desultory) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36CB1346897; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 04:12:24 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Why should you *not* vote on existing Council members To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: proctors@gentoo.org References: <5e45376a-8253-a8f3-6c24-92fa5af900d4@gentoo.org> <7f50285dd6e9dd3175e552ed21dcb7ad40a14719.camel@gentoo.org> From: desultory Message-ID: <71de4d68-e14f-333f-e46d-82dee0e6b2ac@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:12:19 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: f3f7e38f-ca8b-473c-9514-3e31d5e6f4a1 X-Archives-Hash: 8c1ec70d085ed1f6f0ad4eb04647251f On 06/20/19 14:24, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:41 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: >> >> During council meeting from 2019-05-12, we, the current running council, >> tried to make it very clear that we are really concerned about >> undertaker project's attitude expressed in pre-meeting talk in >> #gentoo-council on 2019-05-08, 2019-05-09 and during meeting. And it >> looks like you still haven't understand our point: >> >> You are lacking humanity. > > The Proctors have decided that this post/message/etc is in violation > of the Gentoo Code of Conduct and are issuing this warning. > > While we recognize that a language barrier may have resulted in this > statement being made more strongly than intended, it is still a > personal attack in nature. When discussing application of policy it > is better to focus on the policy itself and its application, and less > on the individuals making the decisions. If there are concerns with > how an individual is interacting with others on a personal level, this > should be raised in private with Comrel, if direct communication > fails. > > The fact that the discussion involves current/former council members > makes it important to try to set an example. > > Since Proctors is still a fairly new concept we wish to clarify that: > > * Proctors doesn't get involved in trying to resolve interpersonal > conflict or gauge intent - we're focused on what was said and trying > to improve how we communicate. > > * Proctors doesn't make value judgments regarding the people making > statements, just what was said. > > * Proctors warnings do not have any cumulative effect, or any direct > effect at all. This is intended to try to encourage good behavior, > not to punish. > Just so everyone is clear on this, exactly how is it bad to explain how someone appears to demonstrate a lack of empathy? Especially after the individual who posted the message in question apologized for any offense caused before proctors stepped in? Does the proctors project acknowledge that posting such a warning very much appears to just be flagging something to complain to comrel about later, and that by excluding the apology this appears to be all the more biased?