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 0C9281382C5 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:43:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1514CE0B11; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:43:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.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 D87BDE0B09 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:43:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.119.10.221] (unknown [12.118.17.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bman) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CAF5C335C4E for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:43:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:43:35 -0500 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> <20180212165506.GA23201@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> 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=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals To: gentoo-project From: Aaron Bauman Message-ID: X-Archives-Salt: 4c13ad9f-bc02-4862-9101-9058e61d8330 X-Archives-Hash: 66a82b5c1bfd7600e4b81e71d0675a16 On February 12, 2018 2:17:51 PM EST, Rich Freeman wro= te: >On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Robbins >wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Rich Freeman >wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Daniel Robbins > >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Ironically, being open and responsive to tinfoil-esque comments >actually >>> > will do a great deal to dispel tinfoil-esque paranoia going >forward=2E >>> > >>> >>> While that seems like a reasonable hypothesis, I fear that it isn't >>> well-established with data=2E >>> >>> In any case I support being open just to be open, and so far the >>> people who have been in dual-roles have chosen to recuse themselves, >>> so this seems mostly like a hypothetical argument=2E >> >> I'd prefer an option to opt out rather than a mandatory stepping >down, but I >> am not outright opposed to it=2E I have no gory details of naughty >things >> guiding my viewpoint, just trusting that if WilliamH has concerns, >others >> probably do too=2E >> > >To be clear, I prefer the status quo, which is that Council members >can recuse themselves if they want to but are under no obligation to >do so=2E I was just pointing out that since everybody is already doing >this who would be affected a policy change wouldn't have much >practical effect=2E > You make a lot of bold claims=2E If only they were true=2E There is defi= nitely one council member who has said they WILL NOT recuse themselves from= a council vote if a conflict arose=2E They even went on to quote the lack= of policy forcing them to recuse themselves=2E >Personally I disagree with the decisions of these Council members to >recuse themselves, and if I were ever in that position I would not >recuse myself unless I had personal involvement in the case=2E I don't >see it coming up anytime soon, not least of which because I'm >currently on none of the affected teams=2E > >But, one of the benefits of democracy is that we get to shoot >ourselves in the foot if we prefer=2E=2E=2E :) --=20 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E