Re: What do you think of the foundation?

Philip Van Hoof wrote:
May I add to this:

Dave's ten steps mean that as soon as you refuse to publicly apologize
for <insert something undefinable>, his foundation board will kick you
and your project out of GNOME.

"My ten steps" were, as I pointed out, a list of measures which I feel te boad should have at its disposition, in cases where they are warranted. I also clearly said that "to get beyond 4 or 5, you would need to be an aggravated and repeat offender" - that is, you would need to be repeatedly and aggressively behaving in a manner which the board finds unacceptable.

The items underneath item number two: imagine an actual situation. His
procedure will always end up at step ten. Every next step worsen the

With a certain type of person, perhaps - the type of person who refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing, even when an ombudsmanly body of his peers *repeatedly* asserts that he has.

Maintainer of competing project X tries to get maintainer of project Y
to become angry, succeeding he now sends some silly mail to the board
and then, enacting Dave's ten steps, the board will ask for an apology.

Yes, because the board is an automaton who will exercise no judgement at all on receipt of a complaint. Let's say, for argument's sake, that someone from the board contacts the maintainer of project Y asking him for his side of the story, and the board looks at both sides of the story, and decides that while there was some provocation by the maintainer of project X, the reaction from the maintainer of project Y was uncalled for, and should not be condoned. What do you think would happen at that stage?

I imagine that the maintainer of project X and Y bothh get told to grow up a bit, and the maintainer of project Y gets an extra rebuke from the board for his language & behaviour. If the maintainer of project Y protests, a short "don't aggravate your situation, drop it, don't do it again" would be what I would expect. Think of it as the ref having a word with a player after a tackle.

You kicked him out STARTING the public embarrassment. Why did you even
execute the seven other steps? That's even a waste of time.

If someone sends hate mail to another member of the project (this is the impression I've got from your hypothetical example), then if they don't recognise that they've done anything wrong, surely the board and the project owes it to ourselves to say "here's what happened, we will not stand for this" - and let the facts speak for themselves. You call that public embarrassment. So be it. You know the archives of these lists are mostly public too? Is it public embarrassment if we point to a publicly accessible email in a list archive and say "this kind of behaviour is uncalled for, and the board does not approve of it"?

To my mind, the person is embarrassing themselves by behaving in a way that is rude.


Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dneary gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]