-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Josh Sled wrote: > Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> got out of hand. Perhaps the goal was laudable, but the methods were >> not? (As an aside, I didn't realize that Roy's e-mail was supposed to >> be a proctor directive.) Or are people really looking for the proctors >> to get involved only when behavior is particularly egregious? Is there > > I find it disappointing (maybe "telling", if one is less charitable) that the > Proctors never censured the original poster for either the tone of the > message, nor the personal invective it contained, and still haven't. I'd > imagine clear violations of the CoC to result in at least a public > admonishment and warning. > The proctors have no power now, thanks to Chris publicly stabbing them in the back after they tried to assert some of their powers - they requested that no one respond to the thread for 24 hours, and people couldn't respect that simple request - and now with what Chris said, it just fuels the flames due to Council "backing" them - as Ciaran has already asserted in a mail earlier in the thread.
Great job Chris, way to stick it to them. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGZvmA1c+EtXTHkJcRAhgZAJ92BOAq8cd+Tp1cxXSUC8sNvw5eUwCfeOeF Kh4cZO7lgVAleBC5s20zZmY= =0PzG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
