On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 16:28 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> Benjamin Berg wrote:
> ...
> > I fully understand that there is an interest for old comments and bug
> > reports to remain available. I raised my concerns because it seemed
> > like we have currently exactly one person who is barred from editin
Benjamin Berg wrote:
...
> I fully understand that there is an interest for old comments and bug
> reports to remain available. I raised my concerns because it seemed
> like we have currently exactly one person who is barred from editing
> their Gitlab history, while everyone else can do so freely
On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 11:10 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> Benjamin Berg wrote:
> ...
> > I have neither gotten a response nor have I seen an indication that the
> > Board is discussing the issue. Is the Board planning on responding to
> > this request?
>
> Reading back over the thread, it's not entir
Benjamin Berg wrote:
...
> I have neither gotten a response nor have I seen an indication that the
> Board is discussing the issue. Is the Board planning on responding to
> this request?
Reading back over the thread, it's not entirely clear what the issue
is, so I'll just summarise what's happene
Hi Board,
On Sat, 2018-05-26 at 01:57 +0200, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:41 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote:
> > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Carlos Soriano
> > wrote:
> > > What is your goal exactly with this interrogatory?
> >
> > I guess he’s just trying to get an answer
> I don't know what these "comments" contribute to later understanding
> of the development decisions. If hardly any, then there is no reason
> to object to deleting them. If they are important, then we should
> fight deleting them. Perhaps it is worth consulting a US lawyer
> about whether GNO
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> There is a good reason not to allow this: it would be sabotague of
> project h
On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 18:55 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Benjamin Berg
> wrote:
> > Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not make
> > this offer in the future and in this case?
> >
> > Benjamin
>
> There is a good reason not to all
On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:41 +0200, Alexandre Franke wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Carlos Soriano
> wrote:
> > What is your goal exactly with this interrogatory?
>
> I guess he’s just trying to get an answer to his initial question,
> since you kept dodging it.
Yes, it was the exact s
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Benjamin Berg
wrote:
Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not make
this offer in the future and in this case?
Benjamin
There is a good reason not to allow this: it would be sabotague of
project history. In a small case, it might be harm
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> What is your goal exactly with this interrogatory?
I guess he’s just trying to get an answer to his initial question,
since you kept dodging it.
--
Alexandre Franke
GNOME Hacker & Foundation Director
__
What is your goal exactly with this interrogatory?
In this case, the request was explicitly delete the account. The user sent
a screenshot of the admin interface with the button selected of "delete
account and activity" and didn't want anything else.
On 25 May 2018 at 21:30, Benjamin Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:29 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> Depends on the case I guess? If I have to go over 1000 comments
> probably not. There could be other reasons, but I don't know yet
> because I didn't manage many cases yet.
And in this particular case?
Benjamin
> On 25 May 2018 at 21:24,
Depends on the case I guess? If I have to go over 1000 comments probably
not. There could be other reasons, but I don't know yet because I didn't
manage many cases yet.
On 25 May 2018 at 21:24, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:20 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > Have you done so,
On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:20 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this offer?
>
> No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes.
Will you make such an offer? If not, is there any reason to not make
this offer in the future and in this case?
B
Have you done so, if not, is there any reason to not make this offer?
No, apart of the policy mentioned in the minutes.
On 25 May 2018 at 21:18, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> > Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply becau
Hi,
On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 21:05 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> Benjamin, I couldn't do in the way you mention simply because that
> was not the request. The request was as described "account deletion
> in GitLab for a blocked user". The request was for complete deletion,
> including any activity.
Hi all,
Tobias, I'm not sure I would like to publicly post it here, as I don't
think it's a good idea to target a specific user, even if it was blocked.
In any case, unfortunately the GitLab UI tricked me in this one, and didn't
move it to the "ghost user" as the board suggested, but rather delete
On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user (Carlos)
> * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this
> * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user for
> inappropriate behaviour. This means that
Hi,
On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 12:29 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> * Request for account deletion in GitLab for a blocked user (Carlos)
> * Carlos sent an email to board-list with details of this
> * Carlos is the only GitLab admin. He recently blocked a user for
> inappropriate behaviour.
Thanks for
20 matches
Mail list logo
