He seems to have set the ban for some reason I do not know. I was bringing up the need for some reporting between comrel and the trustees (even if the update is that nothing has happened in the last month). I got cut off in the middle of it. The action I seek to have is to have the ban removed and to have an apology from dillfridge for the action taken. Reproducible: Always
Because comrel. Nuff said.
(In reply to Matthew Thode ( prometheanfire ) from comment #0) > He seems to have set the ban for some reason I do not know. Not the ban, but +q. I bileve because of this your reply: <prometheanfire> mrueg: ya, not having any sla is one of my personal concerns, we also don't recieve reports, even non-detailed, on comrel actions (or lack thereof), both would be good to have from a legal perspective... >I was bringing > up the need for some reporting between comrel and the trustees (even if the > update is that nothing has happened in the last month). I got cut off in > the middle of it. I personaly see no need in this interacrion, we told you many times that ComRel and Trustees have quite different areas of responsibility > > The action I seek to have is to have the ban removed and to have an apology > from dillfridge for the action taken. While your +q was removed after the internal ComRel discussion, I would recommend you to stop to pursue your personal agenda about <ComRel should submit $something to Trustees>, see above, morover, this your reply was out of the discussion context. > > Reproducible: Always
Telling me to take it to the list or bylaw or whatever would have been fine, but no such communication happened, just a +q with no reason given. Is that acceptable to you?
(In reply to Matthew Thode ( prometheanfire ) from comment #3) > Telling me to take it to the list or bylaw or whatever would have been fine, > but no such communication happened, just a +q with no reason given. Is that > acceptable to you? If you continue for years complaining and pushing the same agenda again and again while noone (well except veremitz) takes you serious, then at some point your remarks plainly become spam. And spammers get usually kicked. I think you should see it as an act of kindness that I only quieted you (though it was mostly so you can't complain about a conspiracy that you can't see on #gentoo-comrel afterwards).
sure, I'm just saying that the +q'ing wasn't properly done, no reason given when asked (in -dev). As far as considering it spam goes, you could have asked me to take it to the lists or something and I would have done so (I realize I was getting ranty at that point). No such request was made. This seems like it was just very badly handled.
(In reply to Matthew Thode ( prometheanfire ) from comment #5) > sure, I'm just saying that the +q'ing wasn't properly done, no reason given > when asked (in -dev). As far as considering it spam goes, you could have > asked me to take it to the lists or something and I would have done so (I > realize I was getting ranty at that point). No such request was made. This > seems like it was just very badly handled. The quieting was set by Andreas by the time he was the team leader. It was purely his decision based on his own thoughts. He has left the team since then, and as the new lead I am not responsible for the action that had been _completed_ by the previous one, but I am only responsible for the consequences I have inherited from the previous leadership.
