On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <beh...@behdad.org> wrote:
> On 12/09/2009 02:25 AM, sankarshan wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Behdad Esfahbod<beh...@behdad.org>
>>  wrote:
>>>> Coming back to the starting point - what is the problem to which the
>>>> solution is being discussed ?
>>> Read the thread?
>> I have been following the thread since the inception. The intent of
>> the (rhetorical ?) question was to bring forth the fact that we are
>> discussing solutions of myriad variety without looking at whether it
>> can be solved non-programmatically. Hence, the question.
> The immediate question I was responding to was whethere/how blog posts of
> people not involved with GNOME anymore / not part of the GNOME community
> should be removed from PGO.  I think what I proposed is an adequate solution
> to that.
> Sure it doesn't fix many other problems raised in the thread.

Agreed. One of such problems is the fact that there is a CoC that has
been put forth at the very beginning of this thread, which is well
crafted. However, that specific mail does not state how the
implementation of a policy against the CoC will happen. How does one
complain ? What evidence would one need to gather to raise a complaint
and so forth. The process parts need to be thrashed out.

sankarshan mukhopadhyay

Sent from Brisbane, Qld, Australia
foundation-list mailing list

Reply via email to