Re: [gentoo-project] Why should you *not* vote on existing Council members

[Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7610 bytes --]

Hi,

On 2019-06-17 07:32, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-06-16 at 23:42 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> - In addition, people *required* for meeting according to agenda
>> received an additional invitation with all details (antarus should be
>> able to confirm).
> 
> It's interesting how you define 'required'.  Because I see myself
> explicitly mentioned *twice* in the agenda [1], and I certainly did not
> receive any additional invitation.  Does this mean that agenda items are
> not considered important by the Council?
> 
> [1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/f13a423c093fef063d3d738154faa99c

No, it isn't. It's already exactly the way you want it to be (and I had
to learn it during my first council meeting the hard way, too; See
https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20180729.txt):

In general, we already have the mantra, "No discussion during meeting"
(for topics from mailing list).

So regarding agenda items you added (topic 3 & 5):

These topics were already discussed on mailing list so they should NOT
require discussion during meeting. Therefore you did NOT receive an
additional invitation like antarus received for topic 4 where I asked
him to participate to report status.


>> So really, saying "meeting time changes without announcement" is wrong,
>> misleading and discrediting current council. Sure, in retrospective I am
>> sorry for not adding a special paragraph. But on the other hand: When
>> you don't read announcement mail in first place, why should you notice
>> the special paragraph?! You either read mail or you don't...
> 
> And on what grounds do you accuse me of not reading it?  Is this really
> an appropriate way for a Council member to treat your fellow voters?
> 
> Just because I don't notice a tiny change on the otherwise boilerplate
> first line of the announcement?  This is especially likely to be
> confused to us in CEST timezone as 19:00Z is 21:00 to us.
> 
> If that's what you want to hear then yes, it's my fault for not being
> more careful and being too trusting to people I voted for.  I won't make
> that mistake twice.  I mean the latter mistake.

Erm, you are the one who blamed current running council for *NOT*
announcing changed meeting time. Something which I take *very serious*
because if that would be true, we would have violated important
principles like

> The Council members are elected for a year and must hold monthly public meetings.

So when you bring that up, I have to assume that you are the one who
didn't read the announcement mail and therefore accuse us for not
announcing the meeting time in advance making it impossible for anyone
interested to attend which would be equal to a non-public meeting which
would be a serious violation of Gentoo's principles.

I always wrote "21:00 UTC" so I am sorry, I don't understand what you
are trying to say with the "CEST timezone" paragraph at the moment.


> If that's what you want to hear then yes, it's my fault for not being
> more careful and being too trusting to people I voted for.  I won't make
> that mistake twice.  I mean the latter mistake.

Like written above, I am taking this reproach seriously, also personally
because I was meeting chair and therefore responsible for announcement.

I hope I have the courage to take consequences if I am wrong and would
have violated such an important principle but when I have NOT and people
start thinking it is inappropriate to defend yourself against false
claims I have nothing more to say.

So yes, if that's your view and that's all you got from my response, be
careful and don't do 'mistakes' twice!


>>> Secret meetings, secret decisions
>>> =================================
>>> This year's Council has been engaged in accepting secret agenda item
>>> concerning commit access of a pseudonymous dev, holding secret meetings,
>>> over it and making secret decisions that were never announced.
>>> At the same time, they managed to blame Undertakers for not knowing
>>> about any of that.
>>>
>>> To cite a Bugzilla comment on the topic:
>>>
>>>> You are aware that we have a special situation here? Most of
>>>> the inactivity period falls between the acceptance of GLEP 76
>>>> (in September/October 2018) and the Council sorting out a way for him
>>>> how to proceed (in April 2019).  [...]  [11]
>>>
>>> Are you aware of those April 2019 proceedings?  Because there's no trace
>>> of any decision in meeting logs.
>>
>> This is another false accusation.
>>
>> Like you can read in *public* meeting log, NP-Hardass asked council
>> member for a private talk:
>>
>>> 16:01 <+NP-Hardass> Yeah, I'd like to meet privately with the council
>>>                     after open floor to discuss my commit privileges
>>
>> Really, aren't council member allowed to talk with others privately?
>> Like you can see I made it very clear that we will not decide anything:
>>
>>> 16:02 <@Whissi> Sure we can talk privately but any decision must be public.
>>
>> And exactly that's what happened: We talked about a *private* topic and
>> nothing was decided.
>>
>> So please stop your false accusation, misleading statements and
>> discrediting current council.
> 
> If nothing was decided, then why did he suddenly become able to commit? 
> Again, as I said in the other reply, if you cause something to happen
> it's a change, even if you don't formally decide it.  Especially when
> you afterwards publicly admit that he wasn't able to commit before this
> secret meeting.

Really? Are you still on your crusade against NP-hardass? I really hoped
you get the closing statement from
(https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20190512-summary.txt
6a), something which happened for the first time in council history.

> If nothing was decided, then why did he suddenly become able to commit?

Where do you see commits from him?

If there is a commit from him (=where he is set as committer and have
signed the push) *after* GLEP 76 was enforced I assume that he did so in
compliance with GLEP 76 like any other Gentoo developer.


Regarding your bugzilla quote:
You, as part of undertaker project, started retirement of NP-hardass
which can be seen in bug history. You, as part of undertaker project
ignored any input from NP-hardass because it didn't match secret
(https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Undertakers&curid=116572&diff=801701&oldid=801431
+ more edits) undertaker policy.

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.

With the quoted text, ulm tried to make you aware of the special
situation: You, as undertaker project, are saying "Sorry NP-hardass,
according to _my data_, you are no longer active, therefore I am going
to retire you as part of my job as undertaker". With some kind of
empathy you should have recognized that NP-hardass was unable to show up
in your logs due to GLEP 76.

If you understand the paragraph as if the Council had created a special
regulation for NP-hardass, then there is a misunderstanding, something
like that did *not* happen.


-- 
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]