On 05/22/2013 12:23 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
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?
All the members of the board aren't elected, neither is our so project
leader so I hardly can say they are representing "me" as a community
member when for example appointing people to the community working group.
Can I please implore you to request information, rather than demand
it? :)
I don't request when fate of an community member is on the, and
potentially being outcasted for the first time in our community history
by an individuals that do not represent the community in whole.
And it's well within my right that I demand the board to explains to me
their justification on why * they* chose these individuals that who's
currently are seating on the community working group.
Why they considered them exceed in that area and to be better suited for
that role than others from the community.
I can clearly see why some of those members are there while others I do
not...
JBG
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
