Re: Another teleconference partial edited transcript

On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 01:28:06AM -0500, Rich Murphey wrote:
> >  
> > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Havoc Pennington
> > > Really, what's to lose by having a phone conversation? An hour of
> > > time? We've already spent a lot more time than that on these emails.
> > 
> > So you believe we have an obligation to discuss the issues?  That's 
> > pretty hypocritcal because Keith was asked what the issues were
> > and he refused to respond.
> > 
> 
> I am not Keith, so I don't see how his actions relate to my hypocrisy.
> As I said, I don't even know what his actions *were* in full.
> 
> The reason you should discuss the issues is that (in my opinion) we
> should try to resolve them, and discussion is one way to do that.

Which issues are we/you talking about ?
Reading the transcripts, it seems to me that these teleconferences
discuss "governance" rather than "effective use of developers" or
"things that should be in XFree86, but never get committed" or whatever 
issues Keith had with the BOD and or core-team.

I can see that David and Keith have fallen out sufficiently that
we need a "personality clash resolution mechanism" and that that may
require rewriting consitutions or similar. Perhaps we do need to sort 
out meta-issues first, but many of us are too far out of the loop,
and are only ready to address the ground level issues.

Since no-one is making the core-devel mails available I haven't seen
any evidence that there was an attempt at addressing those, or at
least not one that wasn't blocked by unfortunate and accidental 
misunderstandings.
Can someone explain to me why we are addressing governance rather
the ground level issues ?
We seem to be concentrating on governance, but the only reason I can 
guess at so far is that Keith is demoralized, and doesn't feel able to 
play until we have some rules which would allow him to do something
like call for a vote of no confidence.

Keeping Keith is probably a good enough reason to sort out governance
(given that it does appear to be broken) but I'd really rather put some
effort into sorting out whatever issues he had *before* we looked at
governance, if that is possible.

Andrew C Aitchison