The word posturing is quite apt for your own behavior Roman, definitely some projection going on there. Again you are all over the map with your feedback.
Here are the actual facts instead of your odd perceptions of them. 1) I made some suggestions about ombudsman@ and posted them here. 2) Marvin, based on feedback from Bertrand, another board member, produced a non detailed patch. The patch he offered was meant as a starting point for discussion, not a final version. It contained no names of actual people, and he mentioned that since the board owns the document it would require their approval. 3) Roman goes on a rampage against the patch, offering nothing as a positive alternate step forward. Marvin asks him what he'd actually agree to, which Roman doesn't address only to say that Shane's commentary should govern the state of affairs. 4) Shane's commentary is aligned with marvin's patch, only highlighting that the people to be named later would have to be approved by both the president as well as the board. Shane's commentary conflicts with Bertrand's about the need for a custom alias versus direct personal addresses. 5) unmentioned to date are the list of volunteers on members@ who agreed to be listed, as well as upayavira's feedback that a simple list of names and addresses does not go far enough- he wants a link to a page containing bios for each person listed. These are the substantive issues we should be talking about Roman, not your penchant for trying to control the conversation with premature votes and irrational rants. The asf is about all of us, and it will survive the loss of any single person while continuing to thrive as it always had. This issue does not require your personal touch, it never does. Give everyone an opportunity to participate in the discussion and the best outcome will follow. Do keep in mind that there isn't a single person in this organization who has been specifically trained to staff a first reporting vehicle for a harassment case, so nobody's opinion should count more than anyone else's about who we trust to do the job. I'm fine with Ross either listing himself amongst the volunteers or vetting the names based on his gut instincts, because that's the best we can do. > On May 28, 2016, at 12:53 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> To a native English reader, Shane's commentary is perfectly aligned with >> Marvin's patch. > > Yes. Which is why I wrote: "Marvin, at this point what I'm about to > ask of you is > grossly unfair (since your proposal, apparently doesn't really make > anything worse) > but would you consider the above statement by Shane to be your course > of action?" > > Marvin patch can definitely go ahead since it does NOT make the current > horrible situation any worse. It simply doesn't make it any better. > Hence +0 on it. > > That said -- I still don't understand why we shouldn't follow the proposal > that > Shane outlined. > > If you're rushing to apply Marvin's patch -- fine -- go ahead. I'll > take care of Shane's > approach over the weekend and replace it then. > >> There are absolutely no gaps in direction despite your >> fierce irrational opposition to having a pair of board members try to get >> something meaningful accomplished for the foundation. > > Could you, please stop with posturing(*)? We had a discussion. That corrected > my understanding of what president@a.o does. What's difficult about this > to understand? > >> How about letting people who want to fix this have a go at it without >> further obstruction and obfuscation, Roman? > > The patch doesn't fix anything. It simply make an already horrible situation > no more horrible. > > Thanks, > Roman.
