Information Exchange Between the Ubuntu Community Council and the Kubuntu Council

Here is all that we have to share in terms of background information.  The Ubuntu governance goals demand that “Decisions regarding the Ubuntu distribution and community are taken in a fair and transparent fashion”.  To that end, here is all the correspondence between the Ubuntu Community Council (UCC) and the Kubuntu Council (KC).  In this post, I am, on behalf of the KC, merely trying to provide data.

I am choosing to redact the name of the UCC member that send one message as it was showing a great deal of personal vulnerability and there’s no public benefit to knowing exactly who sent it.  I think it is an important part of the record to gain understanding about the degree to which the UCC was able (or not – I will leave it to judge) be in a position to assess this situation fairly.

I also wish to extend my personal apology to the Kubuntu community for keeping this private for as long as we did.  Generally, I don’t believe such an approach is consistent with our values, but I supported keeping it private in the hope that it would be easier to achieve a mutually beneficial resolution of the situation privately.  Now that it’s clear that is not going to happen, I (and others in the KC) could not in good faith keep this private.

There are two sets of mails.  First is an official statement by the UCC followed by replies by Jonathan Riddell and an unanimously agreed response from the KC with a final reply from SABDFL.  These are the formal communications between the groups.  After that are all of the informal exchanges between UCC and KC members provided for background.  Time wise, these all happened between the initial reply from the KC and the SABDFL’s pronouncement that this decision is final.  They are replicated here as accurately as I could manage (including successfully resisting the temptation to edit typos out of the messages I sent).

Formal Communications:

Subj: Jonathan Riddell
From:    elfy <elfy@gmx.co.uk>
To:    valorie-zimmerman@kubuntu.org, ubuntu@kitterman.com, rohangarg@kubuntu.org, yofel@kubuntu.org, myriam@kubuntu.org
CC:    cc <community-council@lists.ubuntu.com>
Date:    Wed May 20 03:04:51 2015
Dear members of the Kubuntu Council:

It is with regret that we write this email to discuss an issue that we
feel is negatively impacting the Ubuntu Community. Over a long period of
time Jonathan Riddell has become increasingly difficult to deal with.
Jonathan raised valid issues and concerns, but reacted poorly when he
received answers he did not agree with. As things progressed Jonathan
made public statements impugning the integrity of the Community
Council(CC)and twisting the words of others. He was also argumentative
to the point we feel he violated the code of conduct. Out of respect for
Jonathan’s contributions we allowed this situation to continue in the
hopes it would self-correct, but that has not happened.

Over the past year, and increasingly over the past month, Jonathan

* has been overly aggressive and confrontational in his communication,
both in private with the CC and in public

* has not been responsive to multiple calls for moderation in this
communication

* has not accepted the findings and conclusions from the CC, even
though he was the one who requested them from us

* has taken private communications public when he did not like the way
they went

* has knowingly misrepresented the statements and positions of others

* made accusations about the integrity and honesty of members of the
community

* made accusations of apathy against the CC, in blatant disregard to
the time and energy he knows we have been putting into the issue he
raises

* has been disrespectful towards the CC and Canonical in both private
and public communication

* has abused his leadership position to cause divisions within the
community, rather than uniting it

At this time we have sent an email to Jonathan requesting that he step
aside from all positions of leadership in the Ubuntu Communityfor at
least 12 months. This request will require him to step aside from
leadership in Kubuntu as well. We apologize that this happens just after
the election of the Kubuntu Council and are willing to assist in anyway
to help with the transition.

Jonathan will be able to keep his upload and commit rights and is still
allowed to participate as a member of the Ubuntu Community. He is allowed
to request funds from the community donations program as an individual,
but requests for funding of Kubuntu activities, such as sprints, should
be requested by another Kubuntu leader. Likewise we would like for any
concerns that Kubuntu would like to raise with the Community Council be
brought to us by somebody other than Jonathan.

It is important to stress that this decision was not a result of his
raising issues of concern to us, or because of the issues that were
raised. The CC agreed that the issues were valid and important, and we
took them on and followed through with them to the best of our ability.
It was not the issues, but rather this response to our work and our
conclusions, and his continuing confrontational attitude in private and
public communication that has forced us into this position.

regards

Kev
on behalf of the Community Council

##

Here is a very similar message sent directly to Jonathan Riddell:

Dear Jonathan ,

It is with regret that we write this email to inform you that we, the Community
Council (CC), request that you step down as a Kubuntu Council member and
from all Ubuntu leadership roles for the next 12 months effective immedia
tely. You will be able to keep your upload and commit rights and are
allowed to participate as a member of the Ubuntu Community.

You have been involved in the Ubuntu project since the very early days
and through your contributions many people were able to experience KDE
and Open Source. We all respect you for that hard work. It is because of
this involvement that many see you as leader within Kubuntu.

As a leader it’s important to bring up issues. It’s also important, and
maybe even more so, to build bridges and create ties between teams and
individuals which bring the best to our project. We just don’t see you as a
uniting role in the project any more.

We work in an interesting environment, where companies, projects and
individuals come together and have different goals and shared visions.
Where success is so inextricably linked, it’s even more important that
communication between everyone is clear, and not shaded with personal
feelings, in order that we can all collaborate to get the most out our
work.

In the last few weeks we have come to the conclusion that you have lost
perspective on the bigger project and more importantly Ubuntu’s ideals.
It became harder and harder to work with you, up to the point where several
people involved in the conversations felt hurt and burned out. Whatever
problems you saw and wanted to see resolved could have been dealt with in a
much different way. No matter how much you felt was going wrong, the people
you are talking to are still human beings.

Over the past year, and increasingly over the past month you have:

– been overly aggressive and confrontational in your communication,
both in private with the CC and in public
– not been responsive to multiple calls for moderation in this
communication

– not accepted the findings and conclusions from the CC, even though you
were the one that initially requested them from us
– taken private communications public when you did not like the way
they went
– knowingly misrepresented the statements and positions of others
– made accusations about the integrity and honesty of members of the
community
– made accusations of apathy against the CC, in blatant disregard to
the time and energy you know we have been putting into the issue you
have raised
– been disrespectful towards the CC and Canonical in both private and
public communication
– abused your leadership position to cause divisions within the
community, rather than uniting it

You may still request funds from the community donations program as an
individual, however  requests to it for funding for Kubuntu activities,
such as sprints, should be requested by another Kubuntu leader.  Likewise
we would like for any concerns that Kubuntu would like to raise with the
Community Council be brought to us by one of the other Kubuntu council
members, we have also made this request to the Kubuntu Council.

It is important to stress that this decision was not  made as a result
of your raising issues of concern to us, or because of the issues that were
raised. The CC agrees that the issues you have raised were valid and
important, and we took them on and followed through with them to the best
of our ability. It was not the issues, but rather this response to our work
and our conclusions, and your continuing confrontational attitude in
private and public communication that has forced us into this position.

regards

Kev
on behalf of the Community Council

##

Kubuntu Council’s Reply:

Dear Community Council,

Sad to hear you feel this way, but we are not able to discuss your suggestion, as we simply lack the necessary information. We are specifically puzzled that you did in no way mention any problems in our last meeting on March 19.

Could you please specify in what way Jonathan has violated the Code of Conduct or Leadership CoC? Since this is the only reason you can have to suggest such a stepping back on his behalf, you need to be much more specific and provide clear evidence. Additionally, we are concerned that as at least some CC members are parties to this dispute, you may not have been an appropriately disinterested group to make this decision.  We believe full transparency on the discussions and process that led to this request is essential to avoiding a situation where the credibility of the CC might be at risk when this request becomes public.

FWIW: Jonathan has always acted in our name, so we as the Kubuntu Council stand behind his requests. We have followed the exchange you had with Jonathan on the mailing list and don’t see any acts or wording from him that would justify such a reaction.

Sincerly,

The Kubuntu Council

##

Jonathan’s Personal Reply:

I refuse your request to step down from the Kubuntu council because I disagree entirely with the accusations against me.  I have never been agressive and claiming that I have is insulting and bullying.  If you wish to pursue this request please send the CC meeting minute authorising it to the kubuntu-devel mailing list along with concrete examples of breaches of CoC and Leadership CoC.

It is a shame some CC members dislike that I have asked questions about problems in the community but it is a basic part of being in a community and I have followed all the correct avenues in doing so.

I’m leaving tomorrow morning for a long weekend offline and won’t be back online until Monday evening.

##

Mark Shuttleworth’s reply to Jonathan:

From: Mark Shuttleworth <mark@ubuntu.com>
Date: Sunday, 24 May 2015
Subject: Kubuntu Council
To: Jonathan Riddell <jr@jriddell.org>, elfy <elfy@gmx.co.uk>
Cc: cc <community-council@lists.ubuntu.com>

Jonathan

The CC is entitled to choose who they will recognise as their counterparts and representatives in sub-communities like Kubuntu. It is untenable for us to ask people to volunteer to the CC, and then expect them to have to work with people who they do not feel are constructive leads; they therefore have the same ability to short-list candidates for leadership of sub-communities that I have for nominations to the CC and TB.

It is therefore not a question of whether or not you accept the CC request to step down. This is a statement from the CC that we no longer recognise you as the leader of the Kubuntu community. This decision has been rather painful, but is judged necessary. Whether or not you agree with the position, it is the final position of the CC.

You may not realise the extent to which your conduct has strayed outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour for a leader in Ubuntu. I would suggest you get the benefit of some distance from the project.

Mark

##

Reply to Mark Shuttleworth from Jonathan Riddell:

Oh Mark, all I have ever done is the task you hired me to do a decade
ago.  I have created the most successful community team in Ubuntu and
the most successful community project.  I have never been agressive,
never misrepresented anyone and I have never ever done anything that
is not in the interests of the Ubuntu community.  Two very basic but
important questions were not being answered and I’m pleased they now
have been to my current satisfaction but the CC members need to deal
with why they couldn’t answer them years ago and need to ask
themselves why they are wanting to destroy the community they are
enrolled to help.  I have never claimed to be a leader of anything.

Jonathan

That is all the formal communications.

Informal Communications:

Quick answer to our mail from Charles:

Myriam:

I wanted to send you a quick email to let you know the CC has received your email and the one directly from Jonathan. We have a few members who are not on-line currently and have not read the email so I can not speak for them, but do you feel that a meeting with the Kubuntu Council and the Community Council would be a good step forward in this matter?

CP

##

Myriam’s reply to Charles:

I am sure a meeting would be useful to clarify the situation, but personally I am not happy with the threat issued to Jonathan, I think this would need to be resolved before we meet.

Again, that is my personal feeling, but I see this suspension as very divisive for the  community, especially considering his status as the Kubuntu project lead. If this really took effect it would be very destructive and demotivating for all people involved in the project who have absolutely no problem in collaboration with Jonathan. I am sure this is not the desired effect.

##

Charles Reply:

Myriam:

No worries about the late reply.

On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 23:30 +0200, Myriam Schweingruber wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> sorry for the late reply:
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:43 PM, CP <ubuntu@CP.com> wrote:
> > Myriam:
> >
> > I wanted to send you a quick email to let you know the CC has received your
> > email and the one directly from Jonathan. We have a few members who are not
> > on-line currently and have not read the email so I can not speak for them,
> > but do you feel that a meeting with the Kubuntu Council and the Community
> > Council would be a good step forward in this matter?
>
> I am sure a meeting would be useful to clarify the situation, but
> personally I am not happy with the threat issued to Jonathan, I think
> this would need to be resolved before we meet.

I do not view the request to Jonathan as a threat. I would like to
clarify the situation as well.

> Again, that is my personal feeling, but I see this suspension as very
> divisive for the community, especially considering his status as the
> Kubuntu project lead. If this really took effect it would be very
> destructive and demotivating for all people involved in the project
> who have absolutely no problem in colaboration with Jonathan. I am
> sure this is not the desired effect.
>
> Myriam
>

I can not speak for others on the Community Council, but I am positive
that no one wants to cause issues for the Kubuntu project. The issue of
concern is not Jonathan’s ability to work within the Kubuntu project,
but the interaction with the Ubuntu Community Council, Canonical
employees and its effect on the entire Ubuntu Community. I know we have
some folks out at conferences this weekend so it might not be until
Monday or Tuesday we can take a next step.

I would also like to make you aware that I have had people ask me about
this letter who were not included in the the people that we made aware
of the issue.

Charles

Scott’s reply to Charles reply:

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 07:07:56 PM CP wrote:
> Myriam:
>
> No worries about the late reply.
>
> On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 23:30 +0200, Myriam Schweingruber wrote:
> > Hi Charles,
> >
> > sorry for the late reply:
> >
> > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:43 PM, CP <ubuntu@CP.com>
wrote:
> > > Myriam:
> > >
> > > I wanted to send you a quick email to let you know the CC has received
> > > your
> > > email and the one directly from Jonathan. We have a few members who are
> > > not
> > > on-line currently and have not read the email so I can not speak for
> > > them,
> > > but do you feel that a meeting with the Kubuntu Council and the
> > > Community
> > > Council would be a good step forward in this matter?
> >
> > I am sure a meeting would be useful to clarify the situation, but
> > personally I am not happy with the threat issued to Jonathan, I think
> > this would need to be resolved before we meet.
>
> I do not view the request to Jonathan as a threat. I would like to
> clarify the situation as well.

Regardless of what the CC intended, I certainly view it as such.  I don’t
believe I’m the only one on the KC to feel that way (as with you, I’m writing
this in a personal capacity – this is my view).

> > Again, that is my personal feeling, but I see this suspension as very
> > divisive for the community, especially considering his status as the
> > Kubuntu project lead. If this really took effect it would be very
> > destructive and demotivating for all people involved in the project
> > who have absolutely no problem in colaboration with Jonathan. I am
> > sure this is not the desired effect.
> >
> > Myriam
>
> I can not speak for others on the Community Council, but I am positive
> that no one wants to cause issues for the Kubuntu project. The issue of
> concern is not Jonathan’s ability to work within the Kubuntu project,
> but the interaction with the Ubuntu Community Council, Canonical
> employees and its effect on the entire Ubuntu Community. I know we have
> some folks out at conferences this weekend so it might not be until
> Monday or Tuesday we can take a next step.

Personally, I’m involved in many aspects of the Ubuntu project well beyond
Kubuntu, I haven’t noticed anyone outside the CC taking issue with him.  The
path the CC is on here will be highly destructive to the Ubuntu community and
I strongly encourage you to step back.  As far as I am aware (and I’ve been
here close to ten years) this CC action is entirely without precedent and
risks fracturing the community.

If there’s an issue with a member of the community, they shouldn’t be tried
and convicted in abstentia in a secret court.  This should be discussed will
all the relevant parties present and in public.  Who outside the CC filed
complaints?

> I would also like to make you aware that I have had people ask me about
> this letter who were not included in the the people that we made aware
> of the issue.

Personally, I am deeply uncomfortable that this is being done in private at
all.  It’s contrary to the values of the Ubuntu project I joined.

If the CC wants to have a discussion about a non-catastrophic path forward, I
think that would be wonderful, but I for one will not be involved in such
discussions what Jonathon is under immediate threat.  If following whatever
discussions we have, the CC still believes it’s necessary to remove an elected
member of that Kubuntu Council, having backed down a bit now doesn’t prevent
that.

It’s really up to the CC if you are interested in a discussion on this matter
or not.

Scott K

P.S.  I apologize at least a bit for tone if you find it overly direct.  This
is as restrained as I can manage.

mhalls’ reply to me:

There is no threat against Jonathan. It was a decision made with extreme
reluctance, after numerous attempts to address it with him had failed,
and is the result of long deliberations within the Community Council.

We have lost faith in his intentions when dealing with us, and we no
longer trust that he will treat us fairly or respectfully. If the
Community Council can no longer work with Jonathan, we would be
negligent to leave him in a position of leadership over others.

This is not a reflection on Kubuntu, the Kubuntu Council, or any other
member of the Kubuntu Council. Kubuntu is bigger than just one person,
even somebody as important to it as Jonathan. We know that this is going
to cause significant problems and disruptions to you, and we are
committed to helping minimize those and doing whatever we can to make
this transition as smooth as possible. The CC wants nothing more than
for Kubuntu to be healthy and successful. We are all part of the same
community, after all, and we all want what it to be the best that it can be.

Let’s get together on IRC, Google Hangout, or any other medium that
works for you so that we can work through this together. It’s not going
to be easy, but we all joined our respective councils knowing that there
would be difficult times and difficult decisions to make. However, I
know that if we come together we can move forward to a better outcome
than the paths we are on right now.

Michael Hall
mhall119@ubuntu.com

My reply to mhall:

Then there’s nothing to discuss from my point of view.  Personally, my level
of trust in the CC was low before this debacle.  It’s about zero now.

A path to a better outcome starts with the CC reversing this decision (or
holding it in abeyance) until after the conversation happens.  Your choice.

We don’t need your help to run Kubuntu, so I don’t see any point in any
discussion based on Jonathan’s removal.  We’ll figure it out or not on our own.

If the CC can meet in secret and eject people from the project with no input
from them or the community, then I’m not at all convinced I care to continue
to be involved in Ubuntu.

Scott K

Next reply from mhall:

If you feel there is a reason for the CC to once again trust Jonathan’s
intentions, then by all means let’s talk about it.The CC and the KC are
not adversaries, we are partners. We are eager to have this discussion
with you.

Michael Hall
mhall119@ubuntu.com

Scott K’s next reply:

The CC’s approach to this has been entirely adversarial.  While I agree that in theory the CC and KC aren’t adversarial, that’s not been the CC’s approach to this issue.  So far, all we have are unfounded accusations with nothing to support them.

If you don’t want this to be an adversarial process, go back and read Myriam’s initial reply from the KC.  There was nothing adversarial there.  We are seeking to understand the CC since from our point of view your action is completely unjustified.

I believe the CC’s choices are constrained by how you have chosen to respond to us.  Having the KC blindly accept what you are saying is not one of those choices.  I certainly don’t and won’t.  It’s not consistent with my experiences over nearly ten years with Riddell both in Kubuntu and in broader Ubuntu areas such as the release team.  Absent supporting information, your claims are not credible.

My judgment based on the information I’ve seen is that the CC can’t take criticism and is trying to turn a legitimate difference of opinion into a CoC violation somehow.  It’s not required for you to think Riddell is a wonderful guy.  You didn’t pick him.  The Kubuntu members did.  I’m perfectly willing to revise that judgment based on actual data.  “Because we said so” won’t do it.

Absent a really severe and sustained pattern of CoC violations (for which I’ve seen no evidence and I personally doubt exists) the proper way to deal with your concerns if you think he shouldn’t be on the KC would be to have a public discussion about it so that when he’s next up for re-election, the Kubuntu members can take your information into account when they decide how to vote.  Unlike the CC, the KC is an elected body and so that needs to be considered in deciding how to deal with issues with members of the KC.

Please, as I said above, go back and re-read Myriam’s initial reply (that was agreed to by the KC and isn’t just me spouting off my opinions).  There’s a clear path to working through this in a non-controversial way.  It’s up to the CC to decide if they are interested in that.  So far, that does not seem to be the case.

Scott K

[Redacted UCC member] reply to Myriam’s mail:

I’m at a conference this week so I haven’t had the opportunity to chat
with my fellow CC members about this thread, but I felt it was
important for me to reply on my own, speaking as a fellow community
member.

To be perfectly honest, I cringe every time I see an email from
Jonathan or have to face him in an IRC meeting. I have to prepare
myself for these interactions and feel drained and upset after every
one. This is the culmination of public and private interactions, and I
can’t work with him any more in any medium.

The CC has spent a nice chunk of the past 2 years working on issues
he’s brought up. These have been valuable issues and discussions and
we’ve spent a tremendous amount of time working on them with Jonathan,
Canonical and whoever else is involved. I’ll be honest, we’ve
struggled to get straight answers from the right people within
Canonical at times, and they’ve thrown up the “legal” card at times
that has significantly delayed things. It’s been stressful to everyone
on the CC, particularly our members who work for Canonical and are
powerless in this situation. I would like to be satisfied with the
progress we’ve made as we continue to make valuable contacts in
Canonical, now have the ear of more folks who will pay attention to
our questions and actually have answers to some of the things we’re
asking about (or they are coming soon[0])

However, Jonathan is not satisfied with our work.

Publicly on the legal issues that are now with Canonical legal and the
FSF he has said of us that we don’t “understand the basics of free
software or how it can be harmed by claims that our software is not
Free”[1] when we decided to wait on the upcoming statement from
Canonical and the FSF lawyers. This is really painful for those of us
who have built our whole lives, reputations and careers around
contributing to free software. It has taken over a year for the
lawyers to figure it out, claiming that we don’t understand because we
choose not to share his position is hurtful.

Earlier this month he said we were “unconcerned at the problem”[2] in
spite of all of our work that we’ve done and continue to do on these
issues.

What I’m most baffled by is that he *knows* we’ve been working on
this. We keep having IRC meetings where these things are brought up,
he’s been in contact with us via email. And yet he goes out into the
community and acts as if we’ve done nothing, don’t understand anything
and don’t care.

I don’t put up with this kind of behavior in my personal or
professional life, rarely put up with it in the broader open source
world and am shocked that it has come from someone who is not only a
member of the Ubuntu community, but a trusted leader. His behavior
toward us has destroyed my enthusiasm for the project this year and I
know I’m not the only one on the CC who has been feeling this way. I
am happy to accept criticism, but his continued negativity,
misrepresentation of our work and accusations toward us have just
continued to pile up. This is not how we agreed to treat each other.

Now, I don’t want to get into a point by point argument over these
things, I don’t have the heart or energy to do so. I highly doubt I’d
make it 5 minutes into a hangout without crying, so I trust others on
the CC to pick up my slack there. I know this means we should have
started this conversation before I got to this point, and I am very
sorry for that.

[0] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/2015-May/000466.html
[1] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2015/03/19/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t17:40
[2] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/2015-May/000422.html


[redacted UCC member signature]
/>
A reply frim CP with Scott K response interleaved:

On Friday, May 22, 2015 05:20:11 AM CP wrote:
> Scott:
>
> Again I am speaking on my own accord here, but I wanted to summarize how I
> interpret your comments. What I interpret may or may not be what you
> intended me to understand so I am doing this in an effort to find a common
> ground we can begin a dialog from.

Thank you.  I believe this is a constructive approach to improve understanding.  Comments in line below (also just speaking for myself).

> —- On Thu, 21 May 2015 19:59:04 -0700 Scott Kitterman
> &lt;ubuntu@kitterman.com&gt; wrote —-
>
> The CC’s approach to this has been entirely adversarial. While I agree that
> in theory the CC and KC aren’t adversarial, that’s not been the CC’s
> approach to this issue. So far, all we have are unfounded accusations with
> nothing to support them.
>
> You do not trust the Community Council as a body. Your assumption is that
> they are making ‘stuff’ up.

As a general rule, I do not trust secret proceedings of this nature.  Without associated evidence, I wouldn’t accept it from anyone.  My assumption is that truth is better found via open dialogue and so any closed discussion by a small group is unlikely to have fully considered the problem.

To the extent I lack trust in the CC, it’s almost entirely a result of the lack of collaborative approach to trying to resolve this particular issue.

> My judgment based on the information I’ve seen is that the CC can’t take
> criticism and is trying to turn a legitimate difference of opinion into a
> CoC violation somehow. It’s not required for you to think Riddell is a
> wonderful guy. You didn’t pick him. The Kubuntu members did. I’m perfectly
> willing to revise that judgment based on actual data. “Because we said so”
> won’t do it.
>
> You feel that Jonathan’s criticism of Canonical and the Community Council
> are valid and legitimate.

I don’t think his phrasing was always ideal, but while I would have put some things differently, at the core of it, I agree with what I understand his complaints to be (note: this may be different than what his complaints actually are and it may be different that what the CC views them as).

> Absent a really severe and sustained pattern of CoC violations (for which
> I’ve seen no evidence and I personally doubt exists) the proper way to deal
> with your concerns if you think he shouldn’t be on the KC would be to have
> a public discussion about it so that when he’s next up for re-election, the
> Kubuntu members can take your information into account when they decide how
> to vote. Unlike the CC, the KC is an elected body and so that needs to be
> considered in deciding how to deal with issues with members of the KC.
>
> You feel that there has to be sustained and severe violations of the CoC in
> oder for the action the CC has taken to be valid.

As far as I am aware, there have only been two instances in the project history of people being “fired”[1].  One was temporary and one was eventually permanent.  In both cases there were multiple attempts at resolving the issues and multiple chances with a reasonably broad consensus in the Ubuntu development community (which is where these cases were centered) that it was appropriate.  The discussion that preceded the decision had been public and sustained enough that once the decision was taken, even if not everyone agreed, no one was surprised.

None of this seems to have been done in this case.  I’ve been involved in Ubuntu development for nearly a decade.  In that time, I’ve violated the CoC.  When I did, all that happened was me being called on it and it suggested I calm down.  I don’t think there’s any long term developer who’s been 100% perfect on the CoC.  Zero tolerance has never been the Ubuntu way to do things.

This action by the CC is completely unprecedented.

[1] I know that’s not the right word, but I don’t know a better generic term.

> To summarize you would like to see:
>
> 1. Your more likely to doubt anything the CC says because your trust in them
> is low. (I would like to know why that is, but that is not a question for
> this email)u 2. You feel that Jonathan’s public behavior towards the CC has
> been justified and proper. 3. In order to support the decision you require
> evidence of sustained and severe CoC violations (though a lawyer type could
> argue what both of those words mean)

1.  Yes, but it’s not primarily personally an issue with the CC.  I would doubt any secret deliberation of this kind.

2.  I share his concerns.  Since I’ve not seen all of the exchanges between Jonathan and the CC, I can’t speak for the totality of their propriety.  I believe that some of his choice of language came from a deep sense of frustration which is entirely (from my PoV) understandable and quite human.

3.  I reject entirely the legitimacy of decisions made in secret without any supporting information about how they were made.  Since the CC statement claimed Canonical employees have a hard time working with him, I asked around and checked with Canonical employees that I know he works with regularly.  They were 100% shocked that such a claim was made.  To the extent i have been able to attempt to independently verify the CC’s claims, they don’t appear to be accurate.

> I that accurate with regards to what you are asking?
>
> Common ground I think you, the KC and the CC share at this point.
>
> 1. There is a lack of trust in the current relationship of both bodies that
> needs to be healed for the better of the community.

I agree the current situation is not sustainable.  I’m not convinced the situation is repairable.

> Would you agree with that as a starting point?
>
> Charles

No.  The starting point is for the CC to withdraw their action.  Until that happens, there’s really not point in trying to move forward.

Speaking once again for myself, I do not believe based on the responses from various CC members to date that the CC understands at all the sense of outrage this action has engendered.

As I said in my last reply, go back to Myriam’s email where she was providing you with a statement that the entire KC had endorsed.  The first step on the path forward is clearly identified there.

Scott K

Reply from mhall:

This situation is absolutely repairable, all that’s requires is that we
work together to do so.

You are now aware of the CC’s feelings about working with Jonathan.
Those feelings might be changeable, but only as a result of discuss, not
as a precondition to it. You are more than welcome to try and change
those feelings if you think you can, but they can’t be changed by a
simple demand.

Again we are not on different sides here, we’re one project and one
community. We have problems, yes, and they need to be worked out
*collaboratively*. So I invite any members of the Kubuntu Council who
want to talk to pick a time and a place for us to talk.

Michael Hall
mhall119@ubuntu.com

Scott K’s replyto mhall:

On Friday, May 22, 2015 01:48:50 PM Michael Hall wrote:
> This situation is absolutely repairable, all that’s requires is that we
> work together to do so.
>
> You are now aware of the CC’s feelings about working with Jonathan.
> Those feelings might be changeable, but only as a result of discuss, not
> as a precondition to it. You are more than welcome to try and change
> those feelings if you think you can, but they can’t be changed by a
> simple demand.
>
> Again we are not on different sides here, we’re one project and one
> community. We have problems, yes, and they need to be worked out
> *collaboratively*. So I invite any members of the Kubuntu Council who
> want to talk to pick a time and a place for us to talk.

I’ll point you again at the last two paragraphs of my last email.  Your reply, to me, confirms the next to last one.

> > Speaking once again for myself, I do not believe based on the responses
> > from various CC members to date that the CC understands at all the sense
> > of outrage this action has engendered.
> >
> > As I said in my last reply, go back to Myriam’s email where she was
> > providing you with a statement that the entire KC had endorsed.  The
> > first step on the path forward is clearly identified there.

I think we’re going in circles now, so I’ll refrain from further comment until the KC as a whole has a response.  We’re not all available this weekend, so it may be several days.

Scott K

mhall119’s reply:

I didn’t join a council to win arguments or come out ahead in
negotiations. I doubt anybody else in this thread joined for those
reasons either. I joined it to work together with other people in the
community in order to do something good. That’s all I want to do.

You’re right, we don’t understand how angry you are. And we won’t
understand that until you start talking to us about it.

If anybody wants to talk to me, or yell at me, or tell me what a stupid
thing we’ve done and how big of a jerk I am, I am mhall119 on Freenode
and my email address is below.  If anybody wants reaches out to me,
person to person, I will keep everything that is said confidential
unless you tell me otherwise. At this point I don’t care what is said so
long as we finally start talking.

Michael Hall
mhall119@ubuntu.com

Scott K’s reply to mhall again:

I said I was going to stop, but I can’t quite manage it.

You (the CC) started this without any dialogue.  You the CC need to take action to demonstrate an interest in dialogue.  Words without action are cheap.

I’ve said several times what that action is.  Until you put things back where they were to a place where a dialogue can take place without this action against Riddell in place, there’s no point in having a discussion.

In one of the messages, I’ve lost track of who from, it was suggested that there be a discussion about how the CC can help Kubuntu move forward without Riddell in leadership.  I for one have absolutely zero interest in such a conversation.  In the unlikely event such a thing would come to pass, the CC is approximately the last place I would look for assistance.

Withdraw your action and then all kinds of discussions are possible.  Without doing so, they aren’t.  It’s entirely up to you on the CC to decide if you’re interested in a productive dialogue.  So far, I’ve seen virtually no evidence of it.

Scott K

Reply from charles:

Scott:

I also did not want to reply until others, who are at conferences and
unable to give their full attention to this, had a chance to weigh in.

This email compelled me to want to make a few points. I do not wish them
to appear aggressive and apologize in advance if that is how they
appear.

1)  The CC has made a request of Jonathan and he has refused.

2)  You have indicated that you are unwilling to discuss the matter
until the request is withdrawn.

3)  You assert there is no evidence of the CC wanting to have a
discussion despite the fact that we have asked to have one and mentioned
that we have several members who can not give their full attention to
this.

I can understand wanting to have this resolved. I can understand that
this is stressful. It is my belief that the Community Council has the
same feelings over this issue.

I think there will be two pieces critical to the dialog.

1) That no person and neither council issue ‘edicts’ about preconditions
to having that discussion (Myriam’s response did not do that, but yours
has).

2) That all parties find a common ground with regards to ensuring that
the Ubuntu Community, which included Kubuntu, remains healthy and
vibrant.

I have full confidence that, once all of our members have a chance to
weigh in, that the CC will send a reply to Myriam that offers a way
forward in discussing the issue.

Charles

Scott K’s reply to charles:

I guess I could have done with a bit of going back and rereading our initial message myself.  I thought it said that the decision had to be withdrawn first, but, as you suggest, it does not.  Fair enough, my mistake.

There are two dialogues we might potentially have:

1.  How to move forward with Kubuntu and Jonathan
2.  How to move forward with Kubuntu without Jonathan

The first one is the only one that’s of any interest to me.  If the CC is only interested in the second, I really don’t see any point in any discussion.  If you’re interested in the first conversation, there’s a clear way to indicate that.

Personally, I think the CC is completely beyond the pale in making this request.  Even if every single allegation is true (and I still didn’t find the Canonical employee that can’t work with Jonathan despite continuing to try), both the action and the way it was arrived at are wrong.

If the CC is unable to see the obvious conflict of interest (see the Code of Conduct statements on conflict of interest, particularly the bits about seeking advice and perceived conflicts for reference), I’m at a loss to think of what I might say to make it clearer.

The CoC says to be considerate and collaborative.  The CC doesn’t seem to be doing either of those.  Just this bolt from the blue and then “sorry, several of us are busy at conferences”.  What did you think was going to happen?  Did you seriously think Jonathan was going to read your email, think to himself “Wow, they’re right, I have been an ass and I totally get why they can’t work with me any more – I think I’ll quit this project I founded and have put a decade of my life into”?  It seems you ought to have been prepared for some discussion and (f you were going to do this at all, which I fail to comprehend why anyone on the CC ever thought this was a good idea) send it when the CC would be available to discuss it.

The CoC says to be respectful.  In particular is says, “A community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one”.  Apparently, today, in the Ubuntu project, the CC believes that it is entirely appropriate to have a secret meeting and decide people are not fit to be leaders in the project.  For all the message was phrased as a request, I don’t think anyone took that as anything other than the typical polite fiction for an order.  It’s quite common to request someone’s resignation in lieu of firing.  Let’s not be confused about what the CCs message said.  I certainly feel threatened by this unprecedented action and have not been very productive since this action was taken [1].

Except for step down considerably, I have a hard time finding a substantial part of the CoC the CC has not violated here.  When did “We gather opinions, data and commitments from concerned parties before taking a decision.” take place?  Does the CC not consider the members of the Kubuntu community concerned parties in this decision?

Given how far away from Ubuntu values this CC action is, if the CC can’t see that and is unwilling to withdraw it, I can’t personally see how further conversation is useful.

Additionally, the only reason (from my point of view) this is remaining private is to make it easier to resolve.  It is easier to reverse something that isn’t public yet.  Do not be confused and believe the fact that nothing has been said in public yet means this will stay private.  Unless the CC is going to withdraw this action, there’s no reason for this to stay private.  Working on major project governance issues like this in secret is counter to the Ubuntu way.  [2] says “Decisions regarding the Ubuntu distribution and community are taken in a fair and transparent fashion”.  The initial CC decision didn’t follow that and we certainly aren’t being transparent now.  To the extent I have the information to do so, I will rectify this as soon as I think it won’t harm the chances for a collaborative resolution of the issue.

If the CC is so wrapped up in their personal feelings about this issue that you can’t see how far from the Ubuntu way you’ve strayed, step back, and try again, then I don’t think any amount of sitting down and talking about it can fix that.

So there, in a somewhat longer form than I’d originally intended is why I don’t see any point of having a discussion until the CC steps back.

Scott K

[1]  I have found this sufficiently upsetting that it’s affected not only my productivity in Ubuntu (there’s been no productivity in Ubuntu as the only Ubuntu work I’ve done since I got the CC message was work on this issue), but it’s also affected my ability to focus on my paid work as well.

[2] http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/governance

Reply from charles:

Response in-line. These are items I would ask you to reflect on. At
least enough to pause and try to see the other side. I am trying to do
my best to understand what you are saying as well.

>
> I guess I could have done with a bit of going back and rereading our initial
> message myself.  I thought it said that the decision had to be withdrawn first,
> but, as you suggest, it does not.  Fair enough, my mistake.
>
> There are two dialogues we might potentially have:
>
> 1.  How to move forward with Kubuntu and Jonathan
> 2.  How to move forward with Kubuntu without Jonathan

From my perspective I do not believe the intent was to remove Jonathan
from Kubuntu, but positions involving leadership.

> The first one is the only one that’s of any interest to me.  If the CC is only
> interested in the second, I really don’t see any point in any discussion.  If
> you’re interested in the first conversation, there’s a clear way to indicate
> that.

I think the point in the discussion would be to better understand why
the CC came to this conclusion that they had to make this request. It
may not change minds on either side, but we should have the discussion.

> Personally, I think the CC is completely beyond the pale in making this
> request.  Even if every single allegation is true (and I still didn’t find the
> Canonical employee that can’t work with Jonathan despite continuing to try),
> both the action and the way it was arrived at are wrong.

I do not want to nit pick here, but there are many Canonical employees
so eliminating a few does not mean the CC is being dishonest about this.
Unless you have no faith in every member of the CC I hope you would at
least entertain the notion that this is true.

> If the CC is unable to see the obvious conflict of interest (see the Code of
> Conduct statements on conflict of interest, particularly the bits about seeking
> advice and perceived conflicts for reference), I’m at a loss to think of what I
> might say to make it clearer.

I can understand the conflict of interest you are pointing too, but
again unless you have no faith in every member of the CC I would hope
you consider that there is merit to what was detailed.

<snip>

> The CoC says to be respectful.  In particular is says, “A community where
> people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one”.  Apparently,
> today, in the Ubuntu project, the CC believes that it is entirely appropriate
> to have a secret meeting and decide people are not fit to be leaders in the
> project.  For all the message was phrased as a request, I don’t think anyone
> took that as anything other than the typical polite fiction for an order.  It’s
> quite common to request someone’s resignation in lieu of firing.  Let’s not be
> confused about what the CCs message said.  I certainly feel threatened by this
> unprecedented action and have not been very productive since this action was
> taken [1].

From my perspective I do not see this as a ‘firing’, but a step back
from leadership for a period of time. Jonathan’s ability to contribute
was not removed.

<snip>

> Additionally, the only reason (from my point of view) this is remaining
> private is to make it easier to resolve.  It is easier to reverse something
> that isn’t public yet.  Do not be confused and believe the fact that nothing
> has been said in public yet means this will stay private.  Unless the CC is
> going to withdraw this action, there’s no reason for this to stay private.
> Working on major project governance issues like this in secret is counter to
> the Ubuntu way.  [2] says “Decisions regarding the Ubuntu distribution and
> community are taken in a fair and transparent fashion”.  The initial CC
> decision didn’t follow that and we certainly aren’t being transparent now.  To
> the extent I have the information to do so, I will rectify this as soon as I
> think it won’t harm the chances for a collaborative resolution of the issue.

From my perspective I always struggle with ‘open’ vs. dragging things
out in an ugly fashion in public.

> If the CC is so wrapped up in their personal feelings about this issue that
> you can’t see how far from the Ubuntu way you’ve strayed, step back, and try
> again, then I don’t think any amount of sitting down and talking about it can
> fix that.

I notice that you believe this is all personal feeling. You have
dismissed the possibility of anything else. I apologize for some people
being at conferences and the fact that this will be unresolved until
they are back.

Charles

Scott’s reply interleaved with his previous message and Charles reply:

On Saturday, May 23, 2015 05:46:50 PM CP wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 10:54 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Response in-line. These are items I would ask you to reflect on. At
> least enough to pause and try to see the other side. I am trying to do
> my best to understand what you are saying as well.

I believe I understand it.  I believe you are missing my point.  Even if what the CC claims is 100% right, the process they have pursued to attempt to “resolve” it is utterly wrong.  In terms of the current discussion, what he did or didn’t do isn’t the primary factor.

Further responses in line.

> > > Scott:
> > >
> > > I also did not want to reply until others, who are at conferences and
> > > unable to give their full attention to this, had a chance to weigh in.
> > >
> > > This email compelled me to want to make a few points. I do not wish them
> > > to appear aggressive and apologize in advance if that is how they
> > > appear.
> > >
> > > 1)  The CC has made a request of Jonathan and he has refused.
> > >
> > > 2)  You have indicated that you are unwilling to discuss the matter
> > > until the request is withdrawn.
> > >
> > > 3)  You assert there is no evidence of the CC wanting to have a
> > > discussion despite the fact that we have asked to have one and mentioned
> > > that we have several members who can not give their full attention to
> > > this.
> > >
> > > I can understand wanting to have this resolved. I can understand that
> > > this is stressful. It is my belief that the Community Council has the
> > > same feelings over this issue.
> > >
> > > I think there will be two pieces critical to the dialog.
> > >
> > > 1) That no person and neither council issue ‘edicts’ about preconditions
> > > to having that discussion (Myriam’s response did not do that, but yours
> > > has).
> > >
> > > 2) That all parties find a common ground with regards to ensuring that
> > > the Ubuntu Community, which included Kubuntu, remains healthy and
> > > vibrant.
> > >
> > > I have full confidence that, once all of our members have a chance to
> > > weigh in, that the CC will send a reply to Myriam that offers a way
> > > forward in discussing the issue.
> > >
> > > Charles
> >
> > I guess I could have done with a bit of going back and rereading our
> > initial message myself.  I thought it said that the decision had to be
> > withdrawn first, but, as you suggest, it does not.  Fair enough, my
> > mistake.
> >
> > There are two dialogues we might potentially have:
> >
> > 1.  How to move forward with Kubuntu and Jonathan
> > 2.  How to move forward with Kubuntu without Jonathan
>
> From my perspective I do not believe the intent was to remove Jonathan
> from Kubuntu, but positions involving leadership.

You make the assumption that Kubuntu contributors are willing to continue in his absence.  As far as I have been able to determine, you are wrong.  If Jonathan is removed from leadership in a way that is viewed as illegitimate, Kubuntu will cease because there won’t be anyone (or essentially no one – I haven’t talked to everyone and if it comes to this point people will decide for themselves which may or may not align with what my understanding is) contributing.

The scenario the CC is asking for, aiui Kubuntu continues on without Jonathan in a leadership role, just isn’t going to happen.  If you wonder why I am reacting strongly to this, it’s because I believe the CC is currently acting as an existential threat to Kubuntu.  What you’re intent was is irrelevant.  I believe the consequence will be the end of Kubuntu.

> > The first one is the only one that’s of any interest to me.  If the CC is
> > only interested in the second, I really don’t see any point in any
> > discussion.  If you’re interested in the first conversation, there’s a
> > clear way to indicate that.
>
> I think the point in the discussion would be to better understand why
> the CC came to this conclusion that they had to make this request. It
> may not change minds on either side, but we should have the discussion.

I’m willing to have that discussion, but not with an existential threat hanging over our heads.

> > Personally, I think the CC is completely beyond the pale in making this
> > request.  Even if every single allegation is true (and I still didn’t find
> > the Canonical employee that can’t work with Jonathan despite continuing
> > to try), both the action and the way it was arrived at are wrong.
>
> I do not want to nit pick here, but there are many Canonical employees
> so eliminating a few does not mean the CC is being dishonest about this.
> Unless you have no faith in every member of the CC I hope you would at
> least entertain the notion that this is true.

I didn’t say it wasn’t true.  I said that my attempts to find supporting evidence for the claim have so far been unsuccessful.  This isn’t going to go well if you put words in my mouth.

Additionally, as I said above, even if I accept every single allegation as completely correct, that doesn’t alter in the least my view that the CC is in the wrong in how they have acted.  Here’s a quote from the CoC that I believe the CC should be seriously considering right now:

We can all make mistakes; when we do, we take responsibility for them. If
someone has been harmed or offended, we listen carefully and respectfully,
and work to right the wrong.

You seem to think that if I just understood how wronged you are, I would accept that the CC can and should, in secret, without consultation with any of the affected parties, without any apparent attempts at mediation or any recognition of the inherent conflict of interest involved, direct Jonathan to remove himself from his leadership role in Kubuntu.  No.  You’re missing the point.  I don’t need to understand what he did or didn’t do right now.

Later, if we’re to a point where we’re trying to figure out how best to move forward from this jointly, that would be the time to develop a common understanding of the frustrations that led up to this so we can best determine how to move forward.  That would be the time to have that discussion.

> > If the CC is unable to see the obvious conflict of interest (see the Code
> > of Conduct statements on conflict of interest, particularly the bits
> > about seeking advice and perceived conflicts for reference), I’m at a
> > loss to think of what I might say to make it clearer.
>
> I can understand the conflict of interest you are pointing too, but
> again unless you have no faith in every member of the CC I would hope
> you consider that there is merit to what was detailed.

It doesn’t matter.  The CoC requires you to avoid conflicts of interest or even perception of conflict of interest.  Your decision was clearly contrary both to the letter and spirit of the CoC in many, many ways.  As such (and as previously discussed) the merits are not currently relevant.  Additionally, I don’t consider it to be a valid exercise of CC authority due to the scale of the CoC breach involved.

> <snip>
>
> > The CoC says to be respectful.  In particular is says, “A community where
> > people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one”.
> > Apparently, today, in the Ubuntu project, the CC believes that it is
> > entirely appropriate to have a secret meeting and decide people are not
> > fit to be leaders in the project.  For all the message was phrased as a
> > request, I don’t think anyone took that as anything other than the
> > typical polite fiction for an order.  It’s quite common to request
> > someone’s resignation in lieu of firing.  Let’s not be confused about
> > what the CCs message said.  I certainly feel threatened by this
> > unprecedented action and have not been very productive since this action
> > was taken [1].
>
> From my perspective I do not see this as a ‘firing’, but a step back
> from leadership for a period of time. Jonathan’s ability to contribute
> was not removed.

As I mentioned above, you’re trying to make a distinction without a difference.  If Jonathan is forced out of a leadership role in an illegitimate manner, I do not believe Kubuntu would continue to exist.  So that claim doesn’t matter.

> <snip>
>
> > Additionally, the only reason (from my point of view) this is remaining
> > private is to make it easier to resolve.  It is easier to reverse
> > something
> > that isn’t public yet.  Do not be confused and believe the fact that
> > nothing has been said in public yet means this will stay private.  Unless
> > the CC is going to withdraw this action, there’s no reason for this to
> > stay private. Working on major project governance issues like this in
> > secret is counter to the Ubuntu way.  [2] says “Decisions regarding the
> > Ubuntu distribution and community are taken in a fair and transparent
> > fashion”.  The initial CC decision didn’t follow that and we certainly
> > aren’t being transparent now.  To the extent I have the information to do
> > so, I will rectify this as soon as I think it won’t harm the chances for
> > a collaborative resolution of the issue.
> From my perspective I always struggle with ‘open’ vs. dragging things
> out in an ugly fashion in public.

I have been willing to keep this non-public because I believe the chances of a peaceful resolution are better.  This will though, all of it, eventually be public.  It would be wrong to do otherwise.

> > If the CC is so wrapped up in their personal feelings about this issue
> > that
> > you can’t see how far from the Ubuntu way you’ve strayed, step back, and
> > try again, then I don’t think any amount of sitting down and talking
> > about it can fix that.
>
> I notice that you believe this is all personal feeling. You have
> dismissed the possibility of anything else. I apologize for some people
> being at conferences and the fact that this will be unresolved until
> they are back.

One CC member has directly stated they are so upset they do not believe that they can even talk to Jonathan.  I’m not guessing that deep personal feelings are involved.  That’s quite clear.  I never said it was all personal feeling (once again, don’t put words in my mouth).  I said personal feelings affected the decision.  Are you telling me that’s not the case (I don’t think you are)?

The CC has, I believe inadvertently, taken an action that would seriously jeopardize the existence of Kubuntu if it were carried through.  All I’m asking is don’t do that.  From my PoV, whether the CC knew in advance or not (and I assume they didn’t), you’ve now heard from me that your actions are placing the entire future of Kubuntu at risk.  This is not just an action against him, but all of us.  Is that what you want?  If not, please take a step back so we can have a reasonable discussion about this.

Scott K
Once again, just speaking for myself

rohan joins the fray:

In all honesty, I think the CC is being unfair here.

Jonathan has pursued the licensing issue for the past 3 years and it’s
still no closer to resolution than it was 3 years ago. I see this as a
massive failure on the part of the CC. I simply fail to comprehend how
a issue as big as this has been left unresolved for this long. Leaving
it unresolved has caused massive amounts of frustration within the
Kubuntu community, culminating in Jonathan’s emails to the Ubuntu
Community team mailing list, which when one takes all factors into
account are completely understandable.

( FWIW I also strongly mirror Scott’s comments so far )

Rohan Garg

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com> wrote:
[ see above ]

CP’s reply to rohan:

On Sun, 2015-05-24 at 01:36 +0200, Rohan Garg wrote:
> In all honesty, I think the CC is being unfair here.
>
> Jonathan has pursued the licensing issue for the past 3 years and it’s
> still no closer to resolution than it was 3 years ago. I see this as a
> massive failure on the part of the CC. I simply fail to comprehend how
> a issue as big as this has been left unresolved for this long. Leaving
> it unresolved has caused massive amounts of frustration within the
> Kubuntu community, culminating in Jonathan’s emails to the Ubuntu
> Community team mailing list, which when one takes all factors into
> account are completely understandable.
>
> ( FWIW I also strongly mirror Scott’s comments so far )
>
> Rohan Garg

With the exception that the CC did communicated with Canonical and did
give give a response[1]. The CC consulted with non-Canonical attorneys
in an effort to get an answer to Jonathan’s question. Mark Shuttleworth
even added to the conversation that you were part of in February of 2014
to assure you there was no issue.

I believe we also communicated that Canonical was working with the FSF
to revise the policy. It was just recently posted in the community-team
mailing list that that this process is finally coming to a close.[2]

I would not, as you have, classify that as a “massive failure on the
part of the CC”.

[1]http://fridge.ubuntu.com/2014/02/13/community-council-statement-on-canonical-package-licensing/
[2]https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/2015-May/000466.html

mhall’s reply to rohan:

Jonathan was given an answer, that lawyers from Canonical and the FSF
were working on changes to the IP policy to make it very clear that it
is compatible with the GPL, something Canonical always believed it was.

I don’t recall when exactly he got this answer, but it was some time
ago. Did he not pass this information on to the rest of the Kubuntu
community?

Michael Hall
mhall119@ubuntu.com

On 05/23/2015 07:36 PM, Rohan Garg wrote:
</snip>

follow up from mhall:

I went back through my previous emails to see when Jonathan was given
this answer, and I found that all of the Kubuntu Council members at the
time were told this. So there was clear communication a year ago between
the CC and the KC on this issue.

It seems those discussions between Canonical and the SFLC[1] are just
now coming to a final resolution, so there has not been any new
information or anything new for the CC to do in that time.

[1] I mistakenly said the FSF in my previous email, but it was the SFLC
laywers that Canonical was working with.

Michael Hall
mhall119@ubuntu.com

On 05/23/2015 09:23 PM, Michael Hall wrote:
</snip>

Scotts reply to CP:

On Saturday, May 23, 2015 09:17:19 PM CP wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-05-24 at 01:36 +0200, Rohan Garg wrote:
> > In all honesty, I think the CC is being unfair here.
> >
> > Jonathan has pursued the licensing issue for the past 3 years and it’s
> > still no closer to resolution than it was 3 years ago. I see this as a
> > massive failure on the part of the CC. I simply fail to comprehend how
> > a issue as big as this has been left unresolved for this long. Leaving
> > it unresolved has caused massive amounts of frustration within the
> > Kubuntu community, culminating in Jonathan’s emails to the Ubuntu
> > Community team mailing list, which when one takes all factors into
> > account are completely understandable.
> >
> > ( FWIW I also strongly mirror Scott’s comments so far )
> >
> > Rohan Garg
>
> With the exception that the CC did communicated with Canonical and did
> give give a response[1]. The CC consulted with non-Canonical attorneys
> in an effort to get an answer to Jonathan’s question. Mark Shuttleworth
> even added to the conversation that you were part of in February of 2014
> to assure you there was no issue.
>
> I believe we also communicated that Canonical was working with the FSF
> to revise the policy. It was just recently posted in the community-team
> mailing list that that this process is finally coming to a close.[2]
>
> I would not, as you have, classify that as a “massive failure on the
> part of the CC”.
>
> [1]http://fridge.ubuntu.com/2014/02/13/community-council-statement-on-canoni
> cal-package-licensing/
> [2]https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/2015-May/000466.
> html

Personally, I’m surprised you considered that responsive.  It reads to me like
a mere recitation of Canonical’s position, but is silent on the question that
I understand was asked.  AIUI, Canonical claims that a license is required for
any binary redistribution, regardless of if Canonical’s trademarks are
involved.

I think your reply supports Jonathan’s point.  That you think it’s an answer
to his initial complaint makes me question if you really grasped the issue
that was concerning him.  For myself, I don’t care about Mint.  I care about
FOSS, so whether there was ill will or not, is irrelevant.  The only public
statement the CC has made doesn’t really add much to the discussion from my
PoV.  I don’t claim you’ve done nothing.

I accept that you’ve worked really hard on this, but I am certainly
disappointed that the only statement the CC has made is largely a re-assertion
of Canonical’s position and doesn’t seem to represent the concerns many of us
outside Canonical have about it.  I haven’t personally engaged on this issue,
since I knew Jonathan was working on it and I trust him to have the
communities interest at heart.  Don’t confuse lack of speaking up with not
supporting him.

Once again though, at the moment, I don’t view that as the main issue.  I
don’t think we’re going to make any progress unless the CC steps back from
it’s recent actions and tries to resolve the matter within the CoC.

Scott K

The SABDFL reply above was the next one and while there was a bit more discussion, I don’t think it added anything of note and I’m tired of updating this post.

Update: Further redacted the identity of “CP” at his request.

Advertisements

47 Responses to “Information Exchange Between the Ubuntu Community Council and the Kubuntu Council”


  1. 1 David Edmundson May 26, 2015 at 16:33

    >Here is a very similar message sent directly to Jonathan Riddell:

    [snip]

    > > – taken private communications public when you did not like the way
    they went

    They maybe have a point on that one

    • 2 skitterman May 26, 2015 at 17:51

      The rules of Ubuntu governance require transparency. That clearly outweighs privacy here. The CC can’t try to fire people in secret and expect it not to be public. In any case, regardless of what he didn’t do, the way the CC has handled this is truly abominable.

    • 3 alanpater May 27, 2015 at 12:06

      My reading is that the CC felt accused by Jonathan of acting in bad faith. If that is true, that does go against the Ubuntu CoC.

      • 4 skitterman May 27, 2015 at 12:41

        If it’s true, then they should easily be able to provide data to support the claim. My primary isn’t what Jonathan did or didn’t do (I don’t exclude the possibility that they are exactly correct in their claims), but how they proceeded to deal with it.

      • 5 Jibbidy May 27, 2015 at 16:16

        If they can’t answer direct questions and keep evading them for months on end, most reasonable people would think they have been acting in bad faith.

  2. 6 Humphrey Appleby May 26, 2015 at 22:03

    “I do not believe Kubuntu would continue to exist.”

    Surely it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this is in fact the outcome which instigators of recent evens are wishing to achieve because Kubuntu does not fit into the official Canonical roadmap and causes too much distraction from it.

    • 7 wbarath May 27, 2015 at 00:36

      That sounds to me like you’re looking at it from inside Mark’s head. He isn’t interested in fragmenting the Ubuntu community. And by that, I mean he wants everyone using Unity 8 ASAP, and anyone else is an expense to be humoured lightly.

  3. 8 allenrxnews May 27, 2015 at 00:55

    Canonical is moving past the desktop. Please Kubuntu developers: help Netrunner with its manjaro/arch-based release and let Ubuntu follow its new vision.

  4. 9 jspaleta May 27, 2015 at 00:59

    David,

    This is very important. Private communication is not secret information. Unless you explicitly agree that you will be keep an email you receive secret you have no moral or ethical obligation to do so. it is _NOT_ disrespect to publish verbatim archives of private discussions and make them part of the public record when the need arises to use them as authoritative citations to clear up some sort of controversy.The only time you should expect an email conversation to stay private, is when you explicitly request it to stay private and all the participants have agreed to do so. You have no obligation to keep an email you receive secret. You can publish every email you receive.

    Think it through… if you you receive an abusive email, you are not disrepecting the sending by publishing it as evidence of abuse as part of seeking corrective action. And it can be argued that a private email to Riddell asking him to step aside was..abusive.

    If someone makes a claim that you said something in private discussion, that you did not, you have every right to publish that private discussion as an defence and set the record straight. Public record discussion is how you hold everyone accountable for what they say and how others hold you account for what you say. People who claim that publishing private discussions. verbatim.. is an act of disrespect…do not understand the role of transparency and how vital it is in collaborative governance. So much can be miscommunicated in private discussion.

    Private discussion does not solve all problems. There is a place for it to help isolate discussion from non-constructive noise, but at the end of the day…those discussions have to be expected to make it back into the public discussion, because they contain important information and context which underpin decision making.

    Point of fact Jono on the mailinglist specifically asked for evidence that Jonathon had been asked to step aside. Scott’s publication of the communications provided exactly the information Jono requested and made the request to step aside a fact on record..not just an unfounded accusation.

    Since neither Scott nor other kubuntu people who received these emails agreed to keep them private… they are not being disrespectful. They are being transparent…they are ensuring a measure of accountability. Without the publications of this discussion there would be no…evidence that the request was made to Riddell at all.

    This is a very tough spot the Ubuntu “project” community is in right now. But I assure you, treating transparency as disrespect is NOT going to help. Not one bit.

    • 10 Philipp Kern May 29, 2015 at 04:28

      Private communication is protected by law in certain countries (at least Germany). But common sense would say that given that this is an office within a community that there should be implicit consent to be held accountable using communication trails. And in this case mails were shared from the discussing circle to the outside without a rider to make it clear that it isn’t to be shared further. (Or so it looks?)

  5. 11 Markus Schimpf (Arno Couchcamper) May 27, 2015 at 04:53

    I was wondering for many years, why Kubuntu does not just make their own thing. Let’s face it: in recent years, Kubuntu releases were often the only usable Ubuntu releases. Unlike Ubuntu, who always tried to force new concepts on it’s users, in which it often failed, Kubuntus goal was to provide a reliable distribution based on KDE – well made. as good as it can be on a Ubuntu base, that is.
    Ubuntu has become famous for releasing beta software, and maybe after a week or month, it would work. So I wondered, why the Kubuntu folks tolerate all these issues. And now this!
    You better get rid of the guys who never really helped you and often hindered you and think they can rule the world. rename/fork Kubuntu and continue the good work for the community of users.
    It’s always been good to say goodbye. See Mageia, and siduction as examples. they strive, where their parent projects barely survive.

  6. 12 nitrofurano May 27, 2015 at 06:46

    sadly, what i’m seeing is that Canonical is struggling to manage its decadence… :S

  7. 14 John May 27, 2015 at 11:38

    A suggestion what is in my mind:

    – Netrunner is in the future only Debian based, and the main KDE Distro.
    – Good cooperation with (Open)SUSE
    – Good cooperation with Linux Mint (which has also a pure debian based and a KDE edition.
    – Maybe also Arch (I read a lot of Arch users using KDE)
    – Work together with Jolla and their sailfish OS (also QT5) to have a good user experience on Desktop and mobile!

    Tell Ubuntu go f*** yourself!!!

    PS: Thanks for all the good work on KDE!!! Especially Plasma5, KF5 and KSC 5!!!

  8. 15 Humphrey Appleby May 27, 2015 at 21:08

    The dismissal from the Ubuntu Community Council of Jonathan Riddell, a known “troublemaker” viz he kept asking too many awkward questions, now seems most conveniently timed in view of today’s revelations that Canonical has revealed that it does not know how $143,000 worth of donations, of which $47,042.42 was intended for “flavors”, including Kubuntu, has actually been used.

    This lack of transparency of donated money is a very serious and disturbing issue, and if not fully resolved will completely tarnish the reputation of the management of the Ubuntu project.

    As Henry Peterson was wont to say, “Follow the money.”‘

    The Kubuntu Council must thoroughly investigate the issue to ensure that no money donated for use on Kubuntu was deliberately withheld for use on the Kubuntu flavor and diverted to other purposes.

  9. 16 alanpater May 27, 2015 at 21:19

    kubuntu has received many thousands of dollars from Canonical over many years.

  10. 17 Paul Graydon May 28, 2015 at 12:43

    It seems utterly perplexing that they can’t answer the simple question “why was he ‘fired'” with even rudimentary evidence. Worse that they don’t seem to realise this is the key question of all.

  11. 18 alanpater May 28, 2015 at 15:25

    Everyone can determine for themselves if the tone and wording of the posts meet the CoC rule to assume good faith. My reading is that the CC felt accused of not acting in good faith.

    Here are the public conversations:

    https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/2015-May/000422.html

    https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/2015-May/000484.html

    • 19 Oliver May 28, 2015 at 18:55

      From what the KUbuntu guys are saying, whether or not it was justifiable, they are unhappy with being out of the loop. They are saying it’s the process that’s at issue.

      Also, it seems like another case where a committee has forgotten they are dealing with, essentially, volunteers. If you treat them poorly, you will lose the lot of them. At first, this was implied and there was a chance. Once the KUbuntu team stated that outright, it was basically too late.

      Unless killing KUbuntu was the goal, it was mishandled at the very least.

      • 20 alanpater May 28, 2015 at 19:50

        I am not familiar with precedence for this type of situation. If the Kubuntu committee wants to be involved in the future, there might need to changes to the current rules.

        https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncil/Delegation

      • 21 Oliver May 28, 2015 at 20:07

        Nor am I. Scott K indicates there were two previous “firings” that were handled quite differently, and in line with KUbuntu’s expecations.

        Regardless, I don’t know that I disagree with you that the CC is within the rules. If the goal is to be within the rules then, sure, maybe they win. If the goal is to still have a healthy KUbuntu port in future then they lose.

      • 22 alanpater May 28, 2015 at 20:18

        If the current rules are broken, then negotiate a good faith change. If you can’t live with the current rules or negotiated changes, fork. Nothing wrong with that.

      • 23 skitterman May 28, 2015 at 20:35

        This situation is, as far as I know, somewhat unprecedented. The other cases weren’t people in leadership positions. Personally, I think basic fairness requires that the Community Council not decide the resolution of a dispute where they were one of the parties in the dispute, but there’s no alternative specified. Given the clear conflict of interest and the requirements of the Ubuntu leadership Code of Conduct, I think they should have figured out a different way to solve it. Maybe the charitable view of it might be that we’ve discovered a bug in the governance process.

      • 24 alanpater May 28, 2015 at 20:42

        According to this list, there may be some conflict of interest in the KC as well: https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-council/+members

      • 25 skitterman May 28, 2015 at 20:47

        The Kubuntu Council didn’t decide to kick anyone out, so I’ve no idea what you mean.

      • 26 alanpater May 28, 2015 at 20:54

        Jonathan is listed as a member of the Kubuntu Council. Would he have excused himself from the discussion and vote? Was he speaking as a member of the Kubuntu Council or as an individual in his communications with the CC?

      • 27 skitterman May 28, 2015 at 21:06

        I don’t recall if we had a formal vote prior to him raising the issues. We probably didn’t since we all share his concerns. Whether it was formal or not I think we all felt he was speaking for us (this started a long time ago).
        In the most recent discussions about his future, I don’t recall if he voted or not. I do know that all the votes we either unanimous or close to it so his vote either way never mattered to the result.
        All the correspondence of which I’m aware up to the time I quit updating the post is included here so people can judge for themselves.

      • 28 alanpater May 28, 2015 at 21:25

        So the Kubuntu Council agreed with and was aware of both the content and tone of the communications.

      • 29 skitterman May 28, 2015 at 21:30

        No. We agreed the issues needed to be raised. That was it. It would be nice to know precisely what they found problematic, but they are the only ones that know.

      • 30 alanpater May 28, 2015 at 21:50

        The UCC addressed the issue in February of 2014.

        http://fridge.ubuntu.com/2014/02/13/community-council-statement-on-canonical-package-licensing/

        I don’t know what happened in the interim, but a year and 3 months later, Jonathan said: “the community council seems unconcerned at the problem and Canonical is happy to carry on perpetrating the myth.”

        https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/2015-May/000422.html

        The Canonical myth being that the Ubuntu Trademark is the issue, not the distribution of free software.

      • 31 skitterman May 28, 2015 at 22:04

        In some of the mails in the original post there are links to a few public messages. I’m really not interested in a debate. I’ve already stated in another blog post that I’m in the process of shutting down my involvement in Ubuntu, so I have limited energy for the debate. Can we end this thread now?

    • 32 Ray W. June 2, 2015 at 23:12

      https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/2015-May/000484.html

      If what he is saying in that thread is true, its understandable that the CC would feel that way. My opinion would be that they are NOT acting in good faith or in a trustworthy manner. However at this point in time I admit to not having enough facts to form a solid opinion on the matter.

  12. 33 anakai May 29, 2015 at 11:54

    Better to leave the Ubuntu world and maybe team up with tanglu or pure debian and make you’re own….I am using Kubuntu because of all you guy’s. Go debian, help debian becoming the best kde distro…..Arch, Netrunner, Manjaro no. Arch is more vanilla and kiss. Netrunner is Kubuntu. Manjaro is maybe an option.
    I don’t think it would be to much for you to team up with debian, port muon and keep kde up to date would really help debian with it stable base.

  13. 34 Sum Yung Gai May 29, 2015 at 12:24

    Note: I have no actual involvement with any facet of Canonical, Ubuntu, Kubuntu or anything else *ubuntu. I’m just an end-user and Free Software advocate.

    This is really unfortunate. I’ve been recommending Kubuntu to a lot of people over the years. Perhaps it’s time I start looking more at CentOS (KDE-based) as a recommendation?

    I read over the communications, and from what I can tell, Jonathan’s point was about the redistribution of binaries. The GNU GPL is very clear about that, and any distribution of GNU/Linux (including, therefore, Ubuntu and its derivatives) must honor the GPL’s requirements. Therefore, the only “license” required for binary redistribution–not trademarks, but distribution of GPL-covered binaries–already is licensed, under the GNU GPL. Therefore, Jonathan’s concern is valid and necessary.

    I am further detecting a reluctance to actually provide an answer to that question on the part of the Ubuntu CC. That would certainly be a problem.

    Nor have I seen anything in the above trail of communication of any concrete evidence of Jonathan’s supposed “aggressiveness” that would justify this firing (and that’s really what it is). That word, “aggressive”, I have found, is often used by those in “authoritah” when someone’s actually simply being a whistleblower, which appears to be what Jonathan was doing. The Ubuntu CC members’ language smacks of smarmy political language, and I can see why the Kubuntu Council members are not comfortable with it. There are merely allegations, nothing actually concrete.

    At this point, it seems to me that the Kubuntu project should just “go Debian” and use a Debian base. That distro, the original .deb distro, already has KDE in it, so the “Kubuntu” improvements and refinements could be easily included.

    –SYG

  14. 36 Alberto Salvia Novella May 31, 2015 at 00:09

    I don’t know the details, but I can imagine from where this problems comes from:

    On the other hand, after investigating the issue, I found that is legal for Canonical to prevent other distributions from borrowing binaries. As the only part the GPL enforces to redistribute is the source code.

    And I know there’s a practical reason for that, which is Linux Mint is making full use of Canonical’s infrastructure without not contributing back to it. That’s why I chose in the past not even to try it.

    So if there’s some concern about Canonical way of doing, it would be elsewhere.

    Simply normal people cannot interpret legal code very well. For example where it says that it will enforce the use of patents, it becomes implicit that, because of the GPL, it won’t affect parties using software under that license.

  15. 37 txwikinger May 31, 2015 at 17:23

    The Kubuntu Council is elected by the Kubuntu members. It is at least questionable if the unelected CC should take the power to interfere in the functioning of such an elected body. The only reason for this would be Canonical’s IP rights in form of trademarks on the Kubuntu name.

    So bascially, what the CC has done (unintended or not, I do not have the information to be able to decide this), is to try to say to the Kubuntu Council and the whole Kubuntu membership that either their authority is accepted without questioning, or the permission to use the trademarks are revoked.

    In this light, it is understandable that the Kubuntu community which has not felt as an equal part of the Ubuntu community for more than a decade, feels that this CC decision is a threat against the whole community.

    What would happen if Jonathan’s position is put out for election and the members are voting for Jonathan? This scenario would be a disaster, but most likely to happen if there would be a free and independent election.

    All of this is a very unfortunate situation that has unfortunately only one conclusion, an unnecessary division of the community. I would hope that personal feelings would be disregarded and the main spirit of the CoC been put into the first place, which is the attempt to prevent divisions and deal with disagreements in a way that everybody can live with it and be productive. The current situation is one of locked horns that can only lead to division.

    It is a sorry state of affairs that it has to come to this again and again inside the Ubuntu community that has in the past done a lot for FLOSS. I would hope FLOSS could be the centre of the activities again rather than divisiveness and anger.

  16. 38 Ray W. June 2, 2015 at 23:44

    I am not good at wording things but I will try my best. Some time ago, Canonical cut funding to Kubuntu and terminated the Kubuntu staff. Based on this, could this be a roundabout way of trying to further dissolve the Kubuntu distro? Before others flame this, I am not a conspiracy theorist, it just seems like this is the case. As others have said, perhaps a fork is in order (if Blue Systems will allow it)? However, I must add that I am only an end-user, not knowledgeable of what work is involved in forking a distro. All I can say is, for the time being I am staying away from the **buntu distro’s till this is concretely resolved. I will say tho, in my unprofessional opinion lol I do think the Kubuntu team would work wonders with the debian kde spin 😀 . A long time ago a friend introduced me to linux (XandrOS 2 iirc) and I have enjoyed tinkering with it and seeing it evolve since. It saddens me tho to see more and more that developers etc seem to be working at odds rather than together nowadays.

    • 39 allenrxnews June 3, 2015 at 00:13

      I agree. Have to recognize the signs when a once-hot relationship is over. I wish some of the talented Kubuntu developers would look at Manjaro KDE or Tanglu. I’m using Tanglu with Plasma 4, but it is solid. They could probably use the help bringing Plasma 5 over.

    • 40 alanpater June 3, 2015 at 07:50

      Kubuntu people continue to receive thousands of dollars annually. Canonical often pays their travel costs for conferences for instance. kubuntu is treated no different then lubuntu or xubuntu in this respect.

      • 41 skitterman June 3, 2015 at 08:52

        Actually, those are paid from donations from the community. Canonical manages the funds, but it’s not their money in the pot. This is the same as other flavors such as Lubuntu and Xubuntu.

      • 42 alanpater June 3, 2015 at 10:14

        So Canonical is donating time and effort to you rather then cash money.

        What do you say?

      • 43 olyo June 3, 2015 at 11:23

        @alanpeter the comment was in relation to cash support from Canonical, which Scott K clarified. It had nothing to do with whatever vague “time and effort” you are referring to. Honestly, I just think you like being argumentative.

      • 44 skitterman June 3, 2015 at 11:54

        That’s true. Canonical funds many aspects of the Ubuntu project for reasons that they find reasonable.

  17. 45 gnomek June 3, 2015 at 06:33

    It is kind of obvious that Mark wants to make money on Ubuntu phone, tablets, TV, cloud and desktop with Unity is only a way to achieve this purpose. Personally I have nothing against him making money because he invested so much in Ubuntu and made Linux more popular. It is also obvious to me that although he declares that other *buntu are parts of family they are not so important parts. Mark seems to have a last word in all that concerns *buntu. His recent statements about this situations seems to confirm that. Even if he talks about the importance of community, who believes it? Community is supposed to become customers. Isn’t? He is the leader, the chief, that’s it.

    Why wasting time and energy for fights and not accept the facts. (I presume that my conclusions reflect factual situation.)
    Perhaps rebasing is one solution but would it be still *buntu with Debian base? Rather not. So, joining Debian or Netrunner and doing your things the way you want them to do seems like a natural development and consequence of the current situation. Creating another, new and independent distribution is another solution but too much diversification would also be not that good.

    As I have some experience in working in societies and social communication, although not connected to IT at all, I know that fights are always about defending ego’s and real problems can only be solved when ego’s are put aside. Isn’t the situation about who has authority to decide, to represent, to answer questions, to ask questions…

  18. 46 MIchaelSD June 3, 2015 at 06:40

    I agree too. Canonical become way too obsessed with his own things. As much I love KDE/Plasma, I do not think there is a bright future it with Canonical.

  19. 47 Marcus July 2, 2015 at 02:52

    First: I am user of Kubuntu, so this is (only) a users perspective. I use Kubuntu since 6.04 mainly for three reasons: I want open source, I liked the up to date basis Ubuntu and I like KDE.

    I am used to Kubuntu as Debian based system. The first years I did every upgrade, now I am sticking with 14.10 LTS. Kubuntu has reached a status good enough for my every day use. Since some years I am afraid, that Canonical might change policies, if it fits better to it’s business model, than the freedom of open source, which KDE and Kubuntu are standing for.

    I am not sure, if Kubuntu is still part of the Ubuntu family, as the ideas are too much different. And I am not sure if there can be a solution for that conflict. Since Years I think about changing to Debian, as I don’t trust Ubuntu. I didn’t do so because I don’t want to spent hundreds of hours to get used to a new OS. But if I read the “Joint Statement from the CC and KC” I am afraid, Kubuntu is already dead, not it’s spirit, but it’s relation to Ubuntu. I don’t want suddenly run into a forced change of my system, so I would prefer to see Kubuntus spirit working on a more safe open source OS, like Debian is for example.

    The only worry I have is the resources question, if Blue Systems would continue to support the people behind and if all the Kubuntu people would do the change together. I trust you guys, I have seen you making my system getting better and better over a very long time, to free software always keeping an approach I support 100%. So I trust you, you will make the right decisions for the future.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: