Nelson, I don't think it was good to name name's. Beside, you and Carlos weren't the only ones. There were more.
I've talked with the perpetrator before, I've only mentioned his nick and he has no problems with that. I've mentioned my name and Carlos, because unlike the 'others' we went from 'victims' to friends, and that has to count for something... If worked ok for us, it should've worked ok for others as well... which leads me to think... why didn't worked? lack of commitment? (speculation, as it's the only thing I know, since I know only the perpetrator side and what one member of the Board told me in private). No I don't agree with the conduct used sometimes by the perpetrator, but on the other side, I see at least 2 people which could go over it, so I find this 'crucification' (that's how I see it) a bit off hand, specially when it's an applicant to the Board. I trust the Board, but I would love to know for sure that all options have been explored... and I feel they haven't... so please, enlighten me... why did not the 'victims' blocked the source in the first hand, thus avoiding a large scale conflict? I do trust the Board at some point, and I congratulate them for giving their face to this... but mark my words and please if you know the answer to this questions please answer them... I would also like someone from the board to make a public statement about this issues I'm going to raise: * Was the perpetrator given the right to present a defense? How and When? (That's a right granted by the Chart of Human Rights); * Why was the perpetrator banned from IRC channel when this issue was discussed? (This was told to me by the perpetrator himself); Please feel free to enlighten me about the transparency of all this process.... Because to me it sounds... fuzzy... NM -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org