Manoj Srivastava dijo [Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 04:23:52PM -0700]:
> >> The point I disagree here is that speakers are not to be heald
> >> to the standards and policies imposed on the speakers. Some animals
> >> ought not to be more equal than others.
>
> > All speakers that actually attend DebConf are to be held to such
> > standards and policies. People would have reacted were I to issue
> > comparable views in the talk I gave (or in any talk I attended). But
> > in-house speakers are different than invited speakers.
>
> Invited by whom?
>
> > In this case, if somebody is responsible, it's the DebConf talks team.
>
> Even of they were not the ones to extend the invitation? Should
> they have, instead, rejected the proposed talk being foisted on them?
I had not yet read Ana's mail before sending this one. But I stand by
what I said.
Yes, I was part of the talks team. But yes, I was too entangled in
other stuff to frankly look at all of the ad-hoc scheduling stuff.
But yes, we as a team accepted his talk — Even as an ad-hoc, with all
of the specifics Ana mentioned.
OK, it was not us (Talks Team) who reached out to Linus. But we
accepted his session (knowing who he was, knowing he was not a DebConf
attendee and that he comes from a very different background and
mindset).
So, even if the CoC was sent to him... At least I would not have
expected him to read and obey it. Still, I didn't raise any points
about the fact.
--
Please respect the privacy of this mailing list. Some posts may be declassified
3 years after posting as per http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
Archive: file://master.debian.org/~debian/archive/debian-private/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the web form at <http://db.debian.org/>.
|
|
