Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶59 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1 > napisał: >> As noted, there is one: analyzing the actions of those who are being >> "attacked" to see why people are bothering to do it in the first >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> >> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate >> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

I apologize for replying to only this message, but #1 stood out and I am still catching up. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 12:57 PM, kuzetsa wrote: > On 12/04/2017 01:51 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 + >> "M. J. Everitt"

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 00:25:46 +0100 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > One of the primary issues recently is that you keep bringing up old > matters in a way that is a criticism of Gentoo overall, in various > channels. We've heard it already, and to keep bringing it up doesn't > add

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:22:34 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > For the record and reading assumer's. All my actions were in public, > basically on mailing lists starting with -nfp long ago. All action > taken against me was in public visible on my developer bug. I have >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/06/2017 12:22 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Sorry and no more from me. I just feel given how I am portrayed, > spoken of, action taken against, etc. I must clarify some things for the > public record. Which even despite all my actions being in public. > People still assume because

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:02:01 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > > The problem is that with current policies if somebody in Comrel/etc > had evidence to the contrary they would not be able to refute such a > denial. My example wasn't of wltjr specifically (at least not to my >

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 12/05/2017 11:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people >>> who have caused a lot of harm to others

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people >> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private. I'm not sure >> which is the lesser evil but

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/05/2017 11:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people >> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private. I'm not sure >> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:25:21 -0500 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand >> wrote: >> > On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:25:21 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand > wrote: > > On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > >> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses > >> other

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people > who have caused a lot of harm to others in private. I'm not sure > which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we > tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM, Nils Freydank wrote: > 5. Reasons for warnings and bans > --snip-- > c) spamming, i.e. flooding discussions with lots of messages in a row > d) constant postings off topic, i.e. disrupting discussions with unrelated > questions >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > The difference would be that you, in your first example, can demonstrate > some actual abuse. In the latter case you're talking about differences > of opinions of how things are run, which quickly turns into

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/05/2017 11:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: I think the plan to split mailing lists

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate >>> developers from the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate >> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an >> incongenial tone will have their voice

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

Hello everyone, with regards to the current mailing list (ML) split discussion, and one specific message deep down there by mgorny asked for someone providing moderator rules, I would like to propose the following ruleset for gentoo-dev Right now the situation escalated in a way that forces

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate > developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an > incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will > be dropped or

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 2017-12-03 00:18, Michał Górny wrote: > …snip… I understand, and sympathize with, the motivation to create another list and restrict gentoo-dev. And, I agree with most of the points, especially given some of the more recent events. I still vote no. gentoo-dev is supposed to be for open

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] [checksum] Do not use secure memory for pygcrypt backend

On 12/05/2017 12:00 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Disable using secure memory for pygcrypt backend since we are not > processing secrets. This can avoid the libgcrypt memory error; however, > it turned out to be a huge memory/resource leak which needs to be fixed > independently. > --- >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:59:40AM +, Peter Stuge wrote: > Daniel Campbell wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:18:04AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > I'd like to establish the following changes to the mailing lists: > > > > > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] [checksum] Disable pygcrypt backend due to breakage

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:08:47 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/615620 > --- > pym/portage/checksum.py | 6 +- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/pym/portage/checksum.py b/pym/portage/checksum.py > index

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] [checksum] Disable pygcrypt backend due to breakage

Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/615620 --- pym/portage/checksum.py | 6 +- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/pym/portage/checksum.py b/pym/portage/checksum.py index 5424ce56b..9e7bffea9 100644 --- a/pym/portage/checksum.py +++ b/pym/portage/checksum.py @@ -150,7

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] [checksum] Disable pygcrypt backend due to breakage

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 08:42:43 -0800 Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:34:23 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/615620 > > --- > > pym/portage/checksum.py | 5 - > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] [checksum] Disable pygcrypt backend due to breakage

Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/615620 --- pym/portage/checksum.py | 5 - 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/pym/portage/checksum.py b/pym/portage/checksum.py index 5424ce56b..0841ab231 100644 --- a/pym/portage/checksum.py +++ b/pym/portage/checksum.py @@ -150,7

Re: Accidental spoofing -> Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

On 2017-12-05 10:51, Georg Rudoy wrote: > From and Reply-To are two separate fields. Yes, but that wasn’t what was being discussed. I was giving an example as to why the From field should be editable in an email client. I’ll set the Reply-To for emails to be directed to the proper contact point,

Re: Accidental spoofing -> Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

On 05.12.17 at 15:14 user Aaron W. Swenson wrote: > One reason is to send from a nonexistent account to avoid getting > replies in the first place. >From and Reply-To are two separate fields. But that, of course, depends on the way bans are implemented in the maillist

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dead x11-plugins/wm* dockapps

# Bernard Cafarelli (05 Dec 2017) # Dead Window Maker dockapps, dead upstreams and download links # (no release for more than 10 years) # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #639914 x11-plugins/monto x11-plugins/wmbluecpu x11-plugins/wmcpu x11-plugins/wmdate x11-plugins/wmdf

Re: Accidental spoofing -> Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

On 2017-12-04 18:08, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:01:39 -0500 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:43:15 -0800 > > Matt Turner wrote: > > > > > > Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2017, 18:02:21 CET schrieb Michał Górny: > W dniu pon, 04.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶18 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan > > Ochtman napisał: > > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > [...] > > I'm all for it, as long as someone is actually going

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

Daniel Campbell wrote: > On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:18:04AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > I'd like to establish the following changes to the mailing lists: > > > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be > > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers. > > I

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > No one questions why I stepped down. I have wondered what happened, but haven't felt able to investigate. Please know that I wouldn't take sides without investigating, and I think that an overwhelming majority is also like that. A problem is that you'll only ever