Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Burden of proof

[R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com>]

Hello friends!

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Christopher Díaz Riveros
<chrisadr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> El lun, 02-04-2018 a las 09:23 -0600, Daniel Robbins escribió:
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:53 AM, Christopher Díaz Riveros
>> <chrisadr@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > _You_ can say that this is your Burden of proof that mgorny is not
>> > capable of being a Council member, but in the same line, _your
>> > post_
>> > shows that you are neither in position to be a good Council member
>> > or
>> > project lead, at least that's just _my_ opinion about this post.
>>
>> I am perfectly happy with you having that opinion, because I have
>> never had any intention of being a Council member or project lead,
>> nor "returning BDFL" of Gentoo that mgorny insinuates.
>>
>
> No Daniel, but the fact is that you have history with Gentoo, even when
> you don't see yourself trying to be a "leader", you need to act like
> one.
>
> This reminds me some horrible local news from my country, where a
> congressman had to made public some videos about corruption that we
> suffer as country, that ended up in the resignation of our president.
> Maybe he had to leave, but making pressure by using private videos and
> then release them to public, was definetly not he correct way to do
> that.
>
> This is the fact from you fact-list:
>
> You showed the whole mailing list (and leaved a permanent tracking
> file) a conversation that was not previously seen by ComRel (which is
> the project who you should try to contact before making this kind of
> information public). Even when you are "just another user" here... I
> mean, you run Funtoo, you are a public leader, and how could I possibly
> trust my leader if he shows private conversations publicly... that's a
> fact no matter with whom the conversation is, or what is it about.
>

While in general I have no business posting here, I think I should
rephrase what it seems you are saying:

"People should not be held accountable for their actions, because that
might make them feel bad."

I would be hard pressed to find people who agree.


Using the (US) legal system as a guide, if I break the law to obtain
evidence of someone *else* breaking the law, that evidence is
admissible (if I remember correctly) because I am not the government.
However, it is likely I would still be prosecuted for whatever law
that I broke, though in some areas any charges might be waived by
statute.

In a semi-related vein, the majority of US states do not require that
all parties agree to have their correspondence recorded for any of the
participants to record that correspondence.


It stands to reason that if someone sees you behaving in a manner they
think others should be made aware of, society already supports making
others aware of those actions, even if custom would be to keep them
private.

Cheers,
     R0b0t1