On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > In parallel to Valorie's response, I was having this discussion. > > One of the points from my discussion with Mark was that he wanted to have a > joint CC/KC (+ jr) meeting on how we move forward from here, so this is what > they have suggested. > > Personally, I don't see much point in a meeting to rehash how fubar the > situation is. Thoughts? > > Scott K
While that article remains posted on the Fridge, i do not. My reasoning: while that is posted, it is their framing of the situation. They have heard our thinking, but none of *that* is posted. Therefore, not only are they stuck in their position, they are not listening to us, or anybody else. A dialog takes two, at minimum. Valorie > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > > Subject: Re: Mail to TB and clarification of fridge posting > Date: Monday, June 15, 2015, 09:03:22 PM > From: Laura Czajkowski <[email protected]> > To: Scott Kitterman <[email protected]>, Community Council <community- > [email protected]> > > Hi Scott, my apologies I had over looked that mail. Please find the > suggested agenda for our catch up, can you please let me know what > day/time suits the KC and we can work around that. > > Agenda: > 1) 30 mins perspective on how we got here, from both sides > 2) 30 mins governance expectations, update from the CC on it's plan to > update its Governance role going forward. > 3) 30 mins plan going forward > 4) AOB > > > Laura > > > On 15/06/15 12:37, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> What I said in my last mail to this list on June 11 still applies: >> >>> OK. I think that absent a structured agenda, such a discussion has a >>> substantial risk of devolving into rehashing recent events. It's obvious >>> that there's still substantial emotional charge behind this for people from >>> both groups (myself included). >>> >>> I would suggest that we proceed on the basis of the CC developing a > proposed >>> agenda for the discussion and send out an invitation. I'd suggest the >>> agenda if I knew what all to put on it, but I'd start with an update on the >>> governance changes to bring the TB members in to deal with cases where the >>> CC has a conflict of interest. I'm not sure what help the KC needs from the >>> CC to map out a path forward for Kubuntu, so if you're offering something >>> specific, I'd frame it in those terms. >> Scott K >> >> On Monday, June 15, 2015 10:23:58 AM Laura Czajkowski wrote: >>> Hi Scott, >>> >>> We'd love to take the next step forward and finding a suitable day/time >>> for us to all talk, are there any days/times that are not suitable for >>> us to meet. Perhaps if you could talk to the KC and let us know what >>> times work for you folks and then we can work around that >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> >>> Laura >>> >>> On 10/06/15 01:56, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>>> Sigh. >>>> >>>> Regardless of what Jonathan did or did not do, I think the CC made a >>>> complete hash of how they handled it. If you want to claim the >>>> unprofessional mess on the Fridge is the KC's fault, I suggest you think >>>> it through. >>>> >>>> We'll all be better if you stop trying to through blame around. >>>> >>>> Scott K >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:03:01 AM Charles Profitt wrote: >>>>> The post to the Fridge was something that the CC asked to be done. >>>>> >>>>> We had one document that went to the KC and one that was made public. We >>>>> went public as an answer to the public call from the KC for more detail >>>>> and >>>>> clarity on what our process had been. That document was worked on by most >>>>> (if not all) members of the CC through five drafts. We would not have >>>>> made >>>>> a public statement if the issue had not been brought forward to the >>>>> public >>>>> by the KC. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---- On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 08:02:13 -0700 Mark Shuttleworth >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote ---- >>>>> >>>>> Hi Scott >>>>> >>>>> I've written to the TB to ask their perspective on a potential call on >>>>> them >>>>> >>>>> to provide independent heads to arbitrate cases where the CC - or a >>>>> substantial majority of them - are conflicted or the complainant in a >>>>> dispute. >>>>> >>>>> Also, I added a comment to the Fridge article below Jonathan's >>>>> clarifying >>>>> >>>>> that the fridge posting was not intended or orchestrated by the CC and >>>>> expressing regret that it happened. >>>>> >>>>> http://fridge.ubuntu.com/2015/05/29/community-council-statement-jonatha >>>>> n-ri >>>>> >>>>> ddell/comment-page-1/#comment-797056 >>>>> >>>>> Mark >>>>> >>>>> community-council mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/community-council >> > > ----------------------------------------- > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-council > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-council > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-council Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-council More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
