From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KXVbj-0007Bn-VX for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:31:20 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2797DE01C4; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:31:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.180]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CEDE01C4 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:31:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id w53so1021408pyg.25 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.193.1 with SMTP id q1mr3037961waf.70.1219645878095; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.156.6 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:31:18 -0700 From: "Alec Warner" Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com To: "Thomas Anderson" Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Decision on recent developer retirements Cc: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20080824115425.GA4692@spoc.mpa.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080821001141.GA27708@aerie.halcy0n.com> <20080823113935.GB6392@spoc.mpa.com> <20080824115425.GA4692@spoc.mpa.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5f68be1990fb6580 X-Archives-Salt: 2506da7d-c89c-435a-a703-980a03386aa4 X-Archives-Hash: 6187fa1438db5251d104729a7018fa90 On 8/24/08, Thomas Anderson wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 07:39:35AM -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote: >> Let me see if I understand the council's reasoning... >> >> If dev A gets retired by devrel for insufficient reasons(what those >> reasons are are irrelevant to this discussion), and his behaviour does >> not change after his retirement(as he never had wrong behaviour), then >> dev A's appeal is rejected? >> >> Now, some may say that this is the reason Council reviewed the >> evidence(did that really happen?). To prove my point, I'd like to ask >> the council(and anyone else interested in devrel/council policy) >> what reasons it found, looking through the evidence >> provided, that any of the three developers were a security risk, I >> certainly didn't see any. >> >> Needless to say, I'm very disappointed in this decision. >> >> Please keep discussion on gentoo-project. >> >> >> Regards, >> Thomas > > To Clear up confusion expressed by at least one person, my Mail wasn't just > about > myself being confused about the wording of the announcement email. It > was about my frustration at the Council's decision because their > supposed procedure for appeals didn't happen in this case. In > Philantrop's case at least, his behaviour since the retirement has been > almost perfect(a devrel member even asserted this), yet his appeal was > rejected. > In my not so humble opinion I think they have spent enough time on this matter already. I imagine if they were to spend more you will still not be satisfied; so my question to you is; what do you expect to change? Do you expect the council to re-review everything and let him back in? Do you expect the council to modify their processes and if so how? Do you have ideas for them to improve? -Alec