Summary of the discussion about Marco Rodrigues

[Scott Kitterman]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:45:21 +0100 Daniel Holbach 
<daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>Am Freitag, den 21.12.2007, 18:30 -0500 schrieb 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.  
>> >
>> I'm not being snide at all.
>
>I'm talking about "platitudes". That's not what you've ever got from me.
>Don't pretend I never took you seriously and didn't work on it or talk
>to people. It might not have resulted in what you've wished, nor did it
>work out as I intended, but please don't discredit other people's work
>like that.

I don't mean to say that you aren't doing your best for Ubuntu and the 
community.  When the problems with Marco were first brought both to Jono's 
and your attention, I felt like the reaction I got was very condescending.  
The message I received (independent of what you two were trying to send) 
was that surely I didn't understand, certainly it couldn't possibly be that 
bad, and you would fix it.

>> >> 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.
>
>Unfortunately you don't comment on the general "disruptive behaviour"
>item.

As I've said before, I don't believe that Marco's situation is a good case 
upon which to base future policy.  I believe you (the MC) should deal with 
Marco on an ad hoc basis and come up with a more general policy after.

>The "work through others" item has been discussed in this thread a lot
>of times already.
>

Agreed.

>> >> 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.
>
>This is absolutely unrelated to the decision process this time. 

I agree, in general.  I brought this in in response to one MC member 
suggesting your actions in this case would enhance the legitimacy of the 
council.

>I understood your complaints the first time you raised them. That's why
>I drafted https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncil/Delegation which is
>on the agenda for the next CC meeting.

This is the first I've seen of this.  Thank you for pointing it out.  I see 
some encouraging things there.  I would view it as a step in the right 
direction.

>Also you discredit the work of the council and the people who do good
>work and are well-respected in the MOTU community just because you
>didn't like the process of their election. 
>

No disrespect or discredit to the individuals in question is intended.  
Legitimacy can come from many sources.  Despite the accomplishments of the 
MC members, I do not see the group as having (yet) gained a lot of 
legitimacy outside the scope of MOTU and core-dev applications.  I hope 
(and expect) this will change over time.

>Why are you so angry? At the moment you're the only one still
>complaining. You are mixing up several problematic things right now, all
>containing some bits of truth but in a forum that makes no sense. Can we
>please look at specific issues in specific threads?

I'm not particularly angry.  I do feel ill served by our governence 
processess.  As thing evolve, that perspective may well change.

Scott K