On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 10:51 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 05/22/2013 09:50 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote: > > > On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 07:58 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > > Interesting to see an matter that have been delegate to CWG from the > > > board to handle, being thrown back to the board to resolve. > > This isn't what happened here. > > Really > > > The mail I sent was to confirm if the > > Board had made a decision to implement the ban on their *private* > > mailing list. They replied saying they hadn't. > > "Hi guys, Has the board taken a decision on this yet? We discussed > this over at the cwg private ml and decided that it'll be better to > wait for the board to make a decision and then act accordingly. " > There is absolutely nothing indicating the boards private mailing list in your respond. The mail was addressed to the board, who have access to the private list, and will therefore know what's going on there. > > "If he's been banned, there's isn't anything for the cwg to do. If he's > been given another chance, maybe the CWG could talk to him one *last* > time, request him to *always* keep things civil or risk a *permanent* > ban from Fedora MLs. " > > Here you are asking if he has been banned and stating that no further > action need to be taken by the CWG if it is so. > > Then you state if he's been given a second then maybe cwg should talk > to him one last time.. I don't see what you're trying to point out. It all seems coherent enough. > Anyway I want to know exactly why the board *chose* those individuals > to serve on behalf of the community ( which arguably should be > selected by the community since the board itself is not entirely > elected and even if it was it still arguably should be members from > the community who decide which individuals from the community handle > these delegate matters ) . So, the community should elect the board (even if not completely), but still make decisions itself, rather than trust the board it put in place? > And the answer to the question why members of the CWG cant be listed. It doesn't say "members of the CWG will not/can not be listed" any where. That paragraph on the wiki page was likely written before the initial members were selected to merely point out to anyone who runs into it that the list may not reflect the current membership. Note that it begins, "Currently, the Community Working Group _is_being_reformulated_.." It's a wiki page, feel free to correct it to say "This is the current list of members" instead. Can I please implore you to request information, rather than demand it? :) -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur: "FranciscoD" Please only print if necessary. Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://ankursinha.in/blog
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
