kubuntu-council team mailing list archive

[cprofitt <cprofitt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 2015-07-18 at 21:02 -0700, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:

> 1. Then why bring this up in a governance boars public mailing list?
> Why not email me privately? I thought the CC defaulted to private
> conversations (now your confusing me).

1. This was a communication from me, not the CC.
2. I believe the KC has indicated that they prefer public discussions
and one of the issues they had with the previous situation is the lack
of public discourse.

Now, I guess, it is my turn to be confused. Do you and the KC want
public discussions or private discussions?

> 3. Well last time I checked that was the case... I remember when Mark
> wanted to once forced OMG Ubuntu to apply the CoC there until community
> and I believe the CC at the time told him the CoC cannot be enforced on
> sites and place that are not part of the community. If the CoC did
> apply outside the community I think a fair amount of our membership
> would probably breach the CoC.

There is no point in discussing the application of the CoC since it does
not apply.


> Well then it seems being a good advocate and upholding the Ubuntu
> values and not unnecessarily tracking and trying to censor and chill
> people who disagree with the CC on topics might be a first start. I can
> tell you from discussions I have had with contributors that have left
> the project that both Canonical overreach and attempts to censor and
> the CC defending Canonical has created quite the division.

1. As I explained in my public responses on this list already, I was not
tracking you. I simply was reading articles on planet.ubuntu.com and
links that were included in them. It was those articles that lead me to
the reddit threads.

2. Again, there was no attempt to censor you. Just a request to use
different wording to make your point.

3. I do not believe the CC has tried to defend Canonical. In fact we
have in at least one case found fault with them and worked to improve a
process.


> Oh sorry the only remarks I have seen publicly from the CC is how sad
> they were to lose Elfy not how he shouldn't have said something like
> that. Also as far as I can tell you didn't reply to that thread and say
> its in appropriate for members of the CC make remarks like that because
> he was still a CC member at the time wasn't he? Either way it seems
> hypocritical here you coming to the KC on something you contend may not
> violate the CC but when it comes to a CC member current or former
> making a comment like that nothing is said publicly. See the problem
> here? 

1. I specifically stated that it was not a CoC violation or concern. I
did not leave it ambiguous with the words 'may not'.

2. No, I see no hypocrisy in my actions. What I do see is you trying to
divert the issue to a discussion other than the nature of your comments.

3. That message from Elfy came after his resignation from the CC and
Ubuntu Membership. While it did take time to have him removed from the
Launchpad pages involved he had already resigned.

> Why else would you ask the KC to counsel me if I had not violated the
> CoC? The KC nor the CC has any authority to police or counsel members
> for things they do outside of the community. 

1. Am I to interpret this as you expressing that people can not be asked
to moderate their tone unless they violate the CoC?


> I didn't say you censored me but the act was clearly and attempt to chill or censor

Seriously, I think you and I disagree on what censorship is. It was an
attempt to have you try and move away from bombastic abrasive language. 


> Well the CC did it to Jonathan because he was persistent in his
> advocacy but I guess we disagree on that too.

We do. The CC had no issue with Jonathan being persistent nor the
subjects he brought to our attention.


> I do no find any adversarial relationship simply people trying to
> advocate for what is right and ask their elected peers to advocate for
> what is right and getting upset when the elected peers fail to act
> after two years.

Interesting. Where was the failure to act? The CC acted on both
requests. It got answers in both cases.

1. We were told that there was an ongoing process to revise the policy
and chose to wait and see what the outcome of that process was.

2. We worked with Canonical to get greater details on the donations
program and made requests that they take steps to provide greater
transparency to the process.

Perhaps these results took longer than many of us would have liked, but
to label this as a failure to act is inaccurate.

I know you refused to comment the last time, but I will again ask you to
look forward. Find a way to work collaboratively with your fellow Ubuntu
Members and avoid potentially abrasive and bombastic language.

Charles
>