On Wednesday 03 September 2014 16:00:56 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Ian Jackson
>
> > However, I think a basic requirement is that CoC complaints are:
> > - dealt with promptly;
> > - without fear of favour;
> > - and that the outcome is communicated to the complainants.
>
> It's pretty common that the outcome is explicitly not communicated to
> the complainants, since it's actually none of their business. They
> should receive a «we have received your complaint» message, though.
>
> [...]
>
> > Debian should make a public statement that Linus will not be welcome
> > at Debian events in future.
>
> I disagree that this is a good outcome.
>
> > Also, Debian owes the FSF an apology. That apology should be at least
> > as public as the offence.
>
> I think we as a project managed to project quite clearly during the
> session that we didn't think it was ok to be abrasive and that we
> considered his style problematic (to put it mildly). I think declaring
> him persona non grata instead of enganging as we did would not be
> helpful.
>
> Debian used to have a reputation for somewhere you'd only go if you did
> have thick skin and enjoyed flame wars. We've changed the reality
> around that a fair bit and I believe the reputation is changing too. I
> find it quite uplifting that we're now engaging other projects where we
> see what we consider substandard behaviour.
>
> While we did invite him, I don't think that anyone actually thinks that
> Linus is speaking on behalf of Debian and so we should not apologise to
> the FSF for Linus' words, be they true or not.
I do totally agree with Tollef here.
--
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
|
|
