← Back to team overview

kubuntu-council team mailing list archive

Re: Fwd: Re: Mail to TB and clarification of fridge posting


On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In parallel to Valorie's response, I was having this discussion.
> One of the points from my discussion with Mark was that he wanted to have a
> joint CC/KC (+ jr) meeting on how we move forward from here, so this is what
> they have suggested.
> Personally, I don't see much point in a meeting to rehash how fubar the
> situation is.  Thoughts?
> Scott K

While that article remains posted on the Fridge, i do not.

My reasoning: while that is posted, it is their framing of the
situation. They have heard our thinking, but none of *that* is posted.
Therefore, not only are they stuck in their position, they are not
listening to us, or anybody else.

A dialog takes two, at minimum.


> ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
> Subject: Re: Mail to TB and clarification of fridge posting
> Date: Monday, June 15, 2015, 09:03:22 PM
> From: Laura Czajkowski <laura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Community Council <community-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hi Scott, my apologies I had over looked that mail. Please find the
> suggested agenda for our catch up, can you please let me know what
> day/time suits the KC and we can work around that.
> Agenda:
>   1) 30 mins perspective on how we got here, from both sides
>   2) 30 mins governance expectations, update from the CC on it's plan to
> update its Governance role going forward.
>   3) 30 mins plan going forward
>   4) AOB
> Laura
> On 15/06/15 12:37, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> What I said in my last mail to this list on June 11 still applies:
>>> OK.  I think that absent a structured agenda, such a discussion has a
>>> substantial risk of devolving into rehashing recent events.  It's obvious
>>> that there's still substantial emotional charge behind this for people from
>>> both groups (myself included).
>>> I would suggest that we proceed on the basis of the CC developing a
> proposed
>>> agenda for the discussion and send out an invitation.  I'd suggest the
>>> agenda if I knew what all to put on it, but I'd start with an update on the
>>> governance changes to bring the TB members in to deal with cases where the
>>> CC has a conflict of interest.  I'm not sure what help the KC needs from the
>>> CC to map out a path forward for Kubuntu, so if you're offering something
>>> specific, I'd frame it in those terms.
>> Scott K
>> On Monday, June 15, 2015 10:23:58 AM Laura Czajkowski wrote:
>>> Hi Scott,
>>> We'd love to take the next step forward and finding a suitable day/time
>>> for us to all talk, are there any days/times that are not suitable for
>>> us to meet. Perhaps if you could talk to the KC and let us know what
>>> times work for you folks and then we can work around that
>>> thanks
>>> Laura
>>> On 10/06/15 01:56, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>>> Sigh.
>>>> Regardless of what Jonathan did or did not do, I think the CC made a
>>>> complete hash of how they handled it.  If you want to claim the
>>>> unprofessional mess on the Fridge is the KC's fault, I suggest you think
>>>> it through.
>>>> We'll all be better if you stop trying to through blame around.
>>>> Scott K
>>>> On Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:03:01 AM Charles Profitt wrote:
>>>>> The post to the Fridge was something that the CC asked to be done.
>>>>> We had one document that went to the KC and one that was made public. We
>>>>> went public as an answer to the public call from the KC for more detail
>>>>> and
>>>>> clarity on what our process had been. That document was worked on by most
>>>>> (if not all) members of the CC through five drafts. We would not have
>>>>> made
>>>>> a public statement if the issue had not been brought forward to the
>>>>> public
>>>>> by the KC.
>>>>> ---- On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 08:02:13 -0700 Mark Shuttleworth
>>>>> &lt;mark@xxxxxxxxxx&gt; wrote ----
>>>>>     Hi Scott
>>>>>    I've written to the TB to ask their perspective on a potential call on
>>>>>    them
>>>>> to provide independent heads to arbitrate cases where the CC - or a
>>>>> substantial majority of them - are conflicted or the complainant in a
>>>>> dispute.
>>>>>    Also, I added a comment to the Fridge article below Jonathan's
>>>>>    clarifying
>>>>> that the fridge posting was not intended or orchestrated by the CC and
>>>>> expressing regret that it happened.
>>>>>    http://fridge.ubuntu.com/2015/05/29/community-council-statement-jonatha
>>>>>    n-ri
>>>>> ddell/comment-page-1/#comment-797056
>>>>>    Mark
>>>>> community-council mailing list
>>>>> community-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/community-council
> -----------------------------------------
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-council
> Post to     : kubuntu-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-council
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Follow ups