Summary of the discussion about Marco Rodrigues

[Soren Hansen]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 09:35:57AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> Personally I see it rather the opposite.  It seems to me that
>>> private complaints to council members (not you) get nothing but
>>> platitudes and requests to give it more time.
>> As is the nature of private e-mails I cannot and hence will not
>> comment on any alleged replies to them.
> Sure.  I just want mention it to give a complete picture to why my
> frustration level is so high.

If I were in a mood to discuss this, I would now have pointed out that a
complete picture is not quite complete, when a significant part of it is
hidden or private. I won't point that out, though.

>>> Public complaints get nothing that hasn't been tried before.
>> So if I - as a random community member - told you that you should
>> think more closely before doing X, that would weigh the same in your
>> mind you as if the CC had said the same to you?
> Right, but if you have a large number of people telling you X and
> don't listen, but the CC tells you and you listen, that just indicates
> that the CC will have to do a lot of explaining they don't have time
> for.

That statements is so full of assumptions, I find it difficult to figure
out where to begin to argue against it.

Let me start with this: Are we discussing Marco, or general policy?

>>> It's still not clear to me that there is a limit to what level of
>>> disruptive behavior is OK.
>> If you can define the acceptable level of disruptive behaviour in an
>> objectively measurable, I'd be more than happy to see it.
> Of course not.

Then why do you expect anyone else to be able to define it?

> The proposal currently being considered does nothing to prevent
> another flood of sync request bugs.  

From anyone or from Marco?

If "from anyone": No, how could it?

If "from Marco": I disagree. While it doesn't put anything technical in
place that keeps him from doing so, it has defined the outcome if he
continues to do so.

> Given the current spotlight, I expect it's unlikely we'll get one now,
> but once the spotlight is off, I expect the old ways to resurface.

Can we please deal with specific cases when they arise?

> You've gotten input from more than just me that indicated his work is
> problematic.

Have I said it hasn't been problematic?

>> Two scenarios: a) Your neighbour tells you to turn down the stereo,
>> and b) your landlord shows up with a notice of eviction if you don't
>> turn down your stereo. The matter is the same: Someone thinks you're
>> too loud. The message is the same: Please stop it. Yet, I see a major
>> difference, and I'd hope you do, too.
> I see the difference.  As a neighbor, I'd learn the lesson that only
> eviction threats work and so I'd be complaining to the landlord
> constantly so they could deal with it.

I find it sad that you base your general perception on worst case
scenarios.  Do you actually call the police every time you have even a
minor disagreement with anyone at all? Should I be expecting a knock on
my door soon? :)

> The community would be a much nicer place if people would listen to
> the concerns of their neighbor's and not require official action.

Agreed. Well said. I'm not sure where you're going with that statement,
though.

>>> From my perspective spending the time to engage the MC on this issue
>>> appears to have been wasted.  I doubt I'll repeat the mistake.
>> That's up to you, of course, but I'm not sure I understand what you'd
>> do instead?
> I thought I provided a clear proposal on what I'd do instead.  I
> didn't submit that because I thought less should be done.  I spent a
> lot of time considering both the negative aspects of his behavior in
> the past and how to limit them as well as giving him a chance to
> redeem himself in the future.
> 
> If you don't understand what I'd do, I'm wondering how closely you actually 
> read my request?  What I would do is what I asked you to do.

You've made numerous requests. Some even in private (you said so
yourself).  I've clearly gotten lost in them somewhere.  If I search in
my head for something that matches "ScottK" and "request", the first hit
I get is a request to the MC about making at statement that Marco is not
suitable for MOTU status... Am I to understand that when you in the
future doubt that you'll repeat the mistake of engaging the MC, what
you'll do instead is engage the MC? It's quite possible that I'm missing
something here. Please fill me in.

-- 
Soren Hansen
Ubuntu Server Team
http://www.ubuntu.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/attachments/20071221/77f6f396/attachment.pgp