Summary of the discussion about Marco Rodrigues

[Scott Kitterman]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:10:57 +0100 Daniel Holbach 
<daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>On Do, 2007-12-20 at 19:46 -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.  
>
>It's fairly easy for me to recognise myself you're talking about.
>Instead of commenting on the snide nature of your remark, I'll
>acknowledge that it was partly my mistake not to make it the MC's
>responsibility and think of a general process earlier. 

I've seen complaints about a lack of a process for moving people on from 
Hobbsee since about as long as I've been involved in MOTU.  I don't think 
there's been any confusion about this being missing.

I'm not being snide at all.  You specifically asked me to let you deal with 
Marco and I followed your request against my own judgement.  

>It's been a learning experience for all of us, but I still see the MC in
>a better position for future problems today.

I'm certainly open to action being taken by the MC.  If I see some, I'll 
modify my opinions accordingly.
>
>> Public complaints get nothing that hasn't 
>> been tried before.  It's still not clear to me that there is a limit to 
>> what level of disruptive behavior is OK.
>
>There are a lot of different types of disruptive behaviour and I'm happy
>to have a more general discussion about that. It's my firm believe that
>the MOTU team will benefit from identifying those areas and having a
>more natural reaction of "this is not acceptable" towards that.
>
>https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2007-October/002526.html
>covers parts of what I'm referring to.
>

Yes, but you completely gloss over that fact that he's been asked to work 
through you before and didn't do it.

>> 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.
>
>I'm afraid I can't take this serious. You are threatening not to respect
>the MC because after discussion and input from various people your
>proposal wasn't chosen?

No.  As I've already told you in person, I do not believe that the current 
selection process for the MC confers any particular legitimacy on MC 
members.  Single candidate elections aren't elections at all, so from my 
perspective the MC is a group of people selected in secret without 
significant community input.  Whatever community legitimacy the group has 
comes from the groups efforts to do things that support the community.

So far the MC's accomplishments (outside of selecting MOTUs and 
recommending core-devs to the TB) amounts to ignoring a major source of 
disruption until someone from the community forced then to look at it and 
then deciding we need some reports about it.

I had hoped for some leadership on this matter that would raise my opinion 
of the body as a source of leadership for the community.  I'm still waiting.

>Please let's all take a look at the results in Mid-January and go from
>there.
>
I'll certainly revisit my opinion when facts on the ground warrant it.

Scott K