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 <http://sankarshan.randomink.org/blog> Sent from Brisbane, Qld, Australia _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list email@example.com http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list