On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 04:40:29PM +0200, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> Codes of Conduct (CoC) and especially the policies surrounding them are
> a very political issue (which easily becomes emotional). Unfortunately,
I reviewed the latest CoC proposal. My feedback is below.
https://wiki.gnome.org/Div
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:31 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:15 AM Tobias Mueller wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 15:48 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
>> > The big picture here is that the working group went to great effort to
>> > make sure that everyone was able to participate, an
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:15 AM Tobias Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 15:48 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> > The big picture here is that the working group went to great effort to
> > make sure that everyone was able to participate, and that we had a
> But it sounds like it was made su
Hi,
On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 15:48 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> The big picture here is that the working group went to great effort to
> make sure that everyone was able to participate, and that we had a
But it sounds like it was made sure that "everyone" was having the same
opinion rather than allowing
Alexandre Franke wrote:
...
> The WG is a group working on a document that invites people involved
> in a conflict to seek assistance from a third party. Yet it seems
> that, when a conflict arised, they didn’t call for external
> arbitration, and even went as far as issuing warnings to one of the
meg ford wrote:
...
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Alexandre Franke wrote:
>>
>> Did you mean to quote a specific part of Allan’s email? Because my
>> email was about what happened during the time when discussions were
>> still within the WG (and the conflict that emerged from it) and yours
>
Hi,
On Sun, 2018-04-22 at 13:06 +, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> Another thing I want to mention is that I honestly cannot see this
> proposal to have happen if it was not done with a specific set of
> people that has invested so much into the big picture of what a CoC
> conveys. I don't think is re
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Alexandre Franke wrote:
>
> Did you mean to quote a specific part of Allan’s email? Because my
> email was about what happened during the time when discussions were
> still within the WG (and the conflict that emerged from it) and yours
> is about what happened
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:54 PM, meg ford wrote:
> I do not completely agree with Allan's explanation here. While I have been
> involved in the current discussions about the CoC proposal, it has been as a
> member of the Board, not as a member of the WG. I was not involved in the
> final draft of
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Alexandre Franke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Allan Day wrote:
> > because Ben's behaviour had become so unacceptable (despite multiple
> > warnings regarding basic behaviour) that it was difficult to get
> > anything done within the wid
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Allan Day wrote:
> because Ben's behaviour had become so unacceptable (despite multiple
> warnings regarding basic behaviour) that it was difficult to get
> anything done within the wider working group context.
And on Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:45 AM, he added:
Hello all,
The board discussed in the last meeting the validity of the document and
has approved that the current proposal, including its last changes, is
legitimate, so its evaluation will be continued.
Best,
Carlos Soriano
On 24 April 2018 at 10:45, Allan Day wrote:
> Benjamin Berg wrote:
Benjamin Berg wrote:
...
> I think my stance is quite clear. As Allan stated quite literally, he
> continued working on the Draft without including the rest of the WG in
> this work. Regardless of whether Allan was acting as a board member or
> chairman of the WG, he has overstepped his authority
Hi Tobias,
On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 15:12 +0200, Tobias Mueller wrote:
> [SNIP]
> Am I right in assuming that you would not pursue a referendum if the
> board does not further decide on the current draft?
You are right that this would render many of my reasons to push for a
referendum (or an alterna
Just a small clarification, the working group was/is not a committee,
rather a group of people that have done and helped on doing such document
instead of relying entirely on the board.
However, as you mention Phillip, is up to the board to decide to ammend,
edit and approve the proposal, always w
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:36 AM Benjamin Berg
wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 19:09 -0700, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> > We discussed the topic of Events Code of Conduct during today's board
> > meeting.
> >
> > The board intends to consider your motion separately from the Code of
> > Conduct that was
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Tobias Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 13:35 +0200, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> > I do not think that this is just a technicality that can be taken
> > lightly. Should the Board continue to discuss the proposal as is, it
> > would legitimise the misc
Hi,
On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 13:35 +0200, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> I do not think that this is just a technicality that can be taken
> lightly. Should the Board continue to discuss the proposal as is, it
> would legitimise the misconduct of some CoC WG members.
>
Based on what has been exchanged here
On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 19:09 -0700, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> We discussed the topic of Events Code of Conduct during today's board
> meeting.
>
> The board intends to consider your motion separately from the Code of
> Conduct that was proposed by the working group; we will soon proceed
> to seek memb
[re-sending from the correct email address]
Hi Benjamin,
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Benjamin Berg
wrote:
> At the current point in time, I believe that the proposal below is the
> best way forward. The idea to address it in a WG was good, but it turns
> out it was too political to be an a
Hi everyone,
This is a general response to Ben's email, in my capacity as chair of
the Code of Conduct Working Group. I'm only going to address the
issues that have been raised in response to the group, rather than the
referendum proposal, which is a question for the board.
As you all know, the c
Hi Philip,
On Mon, 2018-04-16 at 05:37 +, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote:
> Your email references vaguely some recent events. Reading between the
> lines, something must have happened in the WG to make the situation
> untenable for you, but I have no idea what. According to [1], the
> WG's ma
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 7:40 AM Benjamin Berg
wrote:
> Dear Board,
>
> Codes of Conduct (CoC) and especially the policies surrounding them are
> a very political issue (which easily becomes emotional). Unfortunately,
> in my view, the CoC Working Group (WG) was unable to set these politics
> asid
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
I have two models to suggest that could be starting points.
One is the LibrePlanet co
24 matches
Mail list logo
