On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:11:11 +0100
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Nope.   What I see as a problem is that the primary author and
> > current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was
> > forcibly removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to
> > be written for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package
> > manager's development team with his constant not-so-subtle
> > attacks.  Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over
> > the specification that defines the most important single feature of
> > Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its development.
> > No offense, but you're not a Gentoo developer any longer and you
> > shouldn't have a say in how *we* manage ourselves.  You're more
> > than welcome to contribute code, fork, or whatever the hell you
> > want.  This is open source, after all, but that doesn't mean you
> > should be allowed to hold the position of power over Gentoo that
> > you've been granted.
> I would like to see Gentoo grow some balls and start banning people
> from -dev and other media used. I don't mean temporary bans, I mean
> for life.
> Yes, it's not nice. Yes, Gentoo should be open for all and encourage 
> participation from all. However, some people have demonstrated time
> and time again over quite a number of years that they wont change no
> matter what. These people are posionous [1].

Slightly ironic for me to suggest this, but...

It is the gentoo-dev mailing list, restrict posting to gentoo devs
(i.e. only people with a @gentoo.org email address) would make a lot of

gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Reply via email to