On 02/14/20 11:14, Matt Turner wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:31 AM Sam Jorna (wraeth) <wra...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> In this instance, at least two people (myself included) have drawn an >> impression that led them to voice their concern in some way (I'm unsure if >> mpagano was voicing concern or just agreeing with the general concept). Maybe >> we're the only ones. Maybe not. > > What do you think the threshold should be? If one person objects, > should ComRel cease and desist? Two? Should we have a Gentoo-wide > vote? > How many people objecting to your handling of a situation would it take for you to consider that you might have handled it in a less than ideal manner? Two? Three? Do we need unanimous declaration by all holders of @gentoo.org e-mail addresses, including yourself, before you even consider it?
> I don't have the highest opinion of ComRel and I'm a member, but maybe > you could let us do our jobs? > > Given that I am not your therapist, I am going to consider this comment from an objective perspective not en emotional one. Given that you "don't have the highest opinion of ComRel", that implies rather strongly that you do not consider ComRel to be competent. Given that you are still a member, that implies that either (1) you consider yourself to not be the least competent member of ComRel (presumably of basic competence), or (2) you are a member specifically to attempt to gain such competence. In the former case, perhaps consider undertaking training of those less competent than you (thereby improving your opinion of ComRel as a whole), in the latter do kindly avoid undertaking actions that you are not competent in. As for the "maybe you could let us do our jobs?" part of that comment, this appears to be a distinctly worrying trend among "special" projects in Gentoo. Proctors now openly refuse to actually undertake their mandate because they face the existential horror of negative feedback when they make outlandishly perverse claims. ComRel now insists, by implication, that while it is by the description of at least one member openly incompetent, feedback is unwelcome at best. Even QA has made similar sorts of empty appeals to their own authority, while also refusing to actually argue their case. None of these should be at all acceptable, yet somehow this nonsense is largely left uncontested for reasons that escape me entirely, If you cannot adequately "do [y]our job", consider that perhaps you should not be doing it in the first place.
