On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 13:13 -0400, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > During my informal conversations with various people it was evident
> > that this issue was seen as a political hot potato, and that it wasn't
> > clear to everyone who had ultimate responsibility for making a
> > decision.
> > It seems to me that we have failed to act (or to do so promptly, at
> > least) essentially because of the identity and status of the alleged
> > violator. This is not acceptable.
> > I can see that it's a difficult situation for the teams responsible,
> > and I'm sorry for putting those people on the spot. And I regret the
> > need to follow this up. But a Code of Conduct is only any use if it
> > is enforced, and it is only fair if it is enforced equally on
> > everyone.
> It seems pretty clear to me that Linus violated the conference CoC. It
> baffles me that one can listen to his repeated abuse of the FSF as
> "dishonest", "immoral", "lying", "crazy bigoted people" and ask...
> well, what about the substance of his allegations?
> Early on in the talk we're warned that there may be "coarse language".
> Well, this is certainly a fairly minor infraction of the CoC, especially
> for a Friday night, but it's also a tacit admission that Linus is being
> held to a different standard.
That is incorrect; there were several talks that included expletives
(and were scheduled earlier in the day). That provision of the Code of
Conduct has not AFAIK been enforced, and should be revised to reflect
our actual accepted practice. But that is a conversation for elsewhere
(debconf-discuss and/or debian-project, I think).
Experience is directly proportional to the value of equipment destroyed.
- Carolyn Scheppner
Description: This is a digitally signed message part