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 2E5751381F3 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 17:13:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8CD96E0845; Fri, 24 May 2013 17:13:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com (mail-ie0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E57EAE0845 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 17:13:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id s9so12775363iec.20 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:13:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZRygXCnkRCV4tgxmxAAOoRRF8aV8LXRJ1LigQgZVl0s=; b=t6SrXOEXJ2km4FEqgnTQqab77kKmlNtdnAjKLWHIRrMK6+N/lORoVRdysCN+MWIUNg NsOFPg2d+3YXzoOOf3nr/dXx9/VW642Xfh5mkbu7tIS3E0wKAztwdlnE9sSvcN3sgZQd Oqv/gVIz5BDqHUTD9sPtJUfCCDYi/YHYTltQwvvK8FljofvzoEQ6WO2Pgc6wP6gzZt6H I6v7Qw0wNMaYbNZpPBPCPew6W3hW5WxyulBeaTJ0BWbD9hNRSKnZCTeqRpYuYuMtLGVe YoZA2NlopkQyTNFT+4JO1G0kgPqV1PwLBd9e/+3FgLs/08+mDHD8hU9pv69omCDBU3Z8 gjGw== X-Received: by 10.50.153.113 with SMTP id vf17mr16962igb.101.1369415620102; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:13:40 -0700 (PDT) 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 Sender: markos.chandras@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.14.169 with HTTP; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:13:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Markos Chandras Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:13:00 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Ym3KMMWpljHh9zzhWnoljMtB6wQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Code of Conduct To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 7bb00cc3-c7c8-4a94-bef4-2a9844278797 X-Archives-Hash: 569da6ad98815eff9292ef35350e8196 On 24 May 2013 14:46, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 Chv=C3=A1tal wrote: > > I'm not a fan of having confused lines of authority where everybody is > in charge and as a result things get deadlocked. I'm all for having > delegated authority and collaboration, and I don't want the highest > authority to step in on every decision. However, I don't think the > authority of the council should be limited in any way as it concerns > the governance of the non-legal aspects of Gentoo, except that they > stand for election. That is their mandate. > > But, others feel differently, and as I said if the council doesn't > object to curtailing their authority, then I'll defer to them. > > Rich > I like what Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 proposed and I am in favor of the new CoC. I also believe the council should not try to enforce the CoC. This is something for devrel/userrel to do. The council should be the judge if someone disagrees with what devrel/userrel decided so he/she can appeal to another authority. But for the day-to-day conflicts, I see no reason for the Council to get involved. Imho this will introduce another layer of bureaucracy without good reasons. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang