Request: ban Harald Reindl from devel@

[inode0]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:35 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
<johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 02:11 PM, inode0 wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
>> <johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/22/2013 12:47 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/22/2013 05:51 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway I want to know exactly why the board *chose* those individuals
>>>>> to
>>>>> serve on behalf of the community
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simple answer:  the board considered them as good candidates to do the
>>>> job.
>>>>
>>> I'm not looking a for a simple answer I'm looking for the reason why the
>>> board chose them over all the other contributors in the project.
>>
>> The CWG had a defined purpose. The Board proposed not just these
>> contributors but a larger group who members on the Board were
>> confident in doing this job. Each Board member has their own reasons
>> for feeling this group was well suited to the task.
>
>
> Yes explain to me what those reason where

We can all list the qualities we have seen in these contributors that
make us feel they would be well suited to the goals of the CWG. But I
don't see any point in doing so since you will just say we picked our
favorites again no matter what we give as reasons. Or you will
disagree with us about the reasons which also gets us nowhere.

>>   Some of those
>> asked to help start the CWG accepted, others declined. One could less
>> cynically view this as the Board tossing a pool of qualified people
>> into a room and letting them form from that pool as they would. Not
>> every new initiative can begin at a grand scale.
>
>
> Or as I said picking it's own favorites.

Broken record.

>>
>>>>> which arguably should be selected by the community...
>>>>
>>>> When proposing the CWG charter, we purposely choose to make it
>>>> appointment
>>>> only.  The logic being that we wanted the best candidates, not
>>>> necessarily
>>>> only those who would win a popularity contest (by election).
>>>
>>>
>>> How is that different from the board picking it's own favorite and
>>> apparently not being able to fully back up with reason why they
>>> considered
>>> those individuals more suited than others to fulfill cwg roles.
>>
>> The Board left the decision about succession up to the CWG to figure
>> out. We just helped get it started. If the CWG wants to select members
>> by throwing darts at FAS they can do that now.
>>
>
> If you expect me to take my hat on for the board to effectively created
> judge/jury and executioners to play god over community members fate's and
> has now given them the ability to throw dart's at fas to select which
> individuals get to play god ( for how long hmm I guess they decide that
> themselves right ) without any communities saying in it I'm not.

I only ask that you give them a chance before you conclude they are
evil and up to no good. :)

John