Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
Hi Rich, Rich Freeman writes: > Actually, I think it is more of a technical constraint. It is > basically impossible to blacklist somebody on a mailing list, since > all they need to do is roll up a new email address. > I can think of various arguments for whitelisting or not whitelisting, > but it seems silly to blacklist. Okay, I see your argument. Just a random bikeshedding. We might be able to require GPG signed email to make a post. Then we can blacklist the GPG identity? To think of it further, the web of trust is basically a whitelist. But it has the flexibility to chain the trust from a Gentoo dev by several 'hops'. Benda
[gentoo-dev] Re: Mailing list moderation and community openness
Alec Warner posted on Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:44:48 -0400 as excerpted: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Eray Aslan wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:28:48AM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote: >> > While I personally do no agree with mailing list moderation infra has >> > been tasked with moving forward on it. >> >> You can always resign from infra. >> >> >> That was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment but not wholly. You cant >> cop out by saying it was an order from council. I understand if you >> dont but do consider it. Fight the good fight. >> >> > So when there is conflict its pretty often that you have 3 options. > > 1) Accept 2) Leave 3) Escalate Wise words. Here the context was/is infra, but they apply to general devs and users who disagree with this as well, thus my own personal interest, altho I'm not so much a "disagree" as a "concerned and sad it has to come to this", as I see both sides. [Note: I intend this to be my only post to this thread, unless a reply calls for further reply on my part. It's my position of record on the moderation/whitelisting and may also be my last to the list before it goes moderated. If that's not of interest to you I'd rather you skip the rest of the post and use the time for something you consider more constructive. =:^) ] > I'm not sure 3 is possible (the council is already the highest body). I > also think that as a organization this is how we arranged it to be. Astute observation. > Speaking for myself, this is not the worst issue I've seen in Gentoo and > so I thing doing 2 is probably not very effective. Its also likely I can > only do 2 once (because maybe I would not be welcome'd back or want to > contribute anymore.) Also astute. I'm ignoring my urge to point to "real world" examples as this list is *definitely* not the place, but in the safer general realm it can simply be observed that there's /always/ a leave/stay-and-accept (if only temporarily/strategically) argument to be made, even in the /worst/ cases (which must here be left to imagination and history) where arguably "leave" is the only morally acceptable alternative. Fortunately, I believe most will agree this isn't a "worst" case in that regard, tho it may be bad enough that some find they must leave. But for both users and devs there remain the practical questions: Where else would I go? Is that alternative actually practically viable? Would I be more effective there than here, hoping to eventually reverse the decision (or for those like me more on the sad-it-came-to-this-but-I- see-why-some-believe-it-has side, hoping a short trial is demonstration enough of capacity and that it lowers the threat to where even those that agree it has to come to that now feel comfortable in reverting it, tho possibly retaining the capacity to reimpliment if necessary)? In practice, there are certainly from-source alternatives. However, again practically, gentoo does seem to be the biggest, and most others seem to either be mostly-compatible offshoots such as funtoo and exherbo that to some degree still depend on the larger gentoo tree and community, or to make choices that put them to one side or the other of gentoo's "automated/scripted from-source" approach (arch's core-binary approach on the toward-binaries side, and lfs/linux-from-scratch's much more manual- but-still-guided, approach on the other). There's also the very practical "but I already know and am familiar with gentoo and how it works (both technically and socially) and would have to learn the others" factor. For both those reasons and I suppose others, gentooers who have been around a few years, at least long enough to develop that familiarity, tend to stay around as long as they remain interested in gentoo's general automated-from-source approach (tho many ultimately lose that interest and go binary-distro or leave the FLOSS community entirely), unless of course forced out as incompatible with continuing community interest, in which case, given little choice, they often land at one of those alternatives. > That leaves 1 and one interests me for many reasons. > > a) as noted earlier, decisions are not set in stone. Its possible we > could turn on this whitelisting solution for a brief period and the > decision is overturned at the next council meeting, or perhaps at the > next council election once the existing council is replaced. Agreed. I've already mentioned what I believe would be my ideal outcome, above. Try the whitelisting as proposed for awhile, then having demonstrated the capacity/threat, relax things, while maintaining the capacity, such that hopefully the toxic people that created the initial need will not find it worth their while to be toxic here once again, but with the capacity to reinstitute should they do so. (Yes, I know that unused tools fall into disrepair over time, but often, repair, or even redo if necessary, is easier the second time around. So hopefu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
On 22/03/18 00:33, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > Most contributions should happen via patches on b.g.o > Who was lamenting about the every-increasing bug queue on this Very list recently? And what about those 5+ year old bugs that are rotting for packages long last-rited from the tree ? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
On 03/22/2018 12:56 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Rich Freeman schrieb: > >> Actually, I think it is more of a technical constraint. It is >> basically impossible to blacklist somebody on a mailing list, since >> all they need to do is roll up a new email address. >> >> I can think of various arguments for whitelisting or not whitelisting, >> but it seems silly to blacklist. > > And how often did it actually happen that blacklisting was evaded on -dev > mailing list? we are aware of at least one case of evasion like this within the relatively near past, but it is more a matter of principle as we don't know if there are sock-puppets etc around. The main things is really, the bar for whiltelisting is very low, you just need a current dev to vouch for you, which is similiar to editbugs and the #-dev channel on IRC. Most discussion should anyways happen on -project ML, whereby the -dev ML is technical in nature. So there isn't any real restriction being imposed here. Most contributions should happen via patches on b.g.o -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
On 03/22/2018 12:56 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Michael Palimaka schrieb: >> I see that in bug #650964[1] Council is pushing forward again with >> implementing user whitelisting on this mailing list (ie. anyone that is >> not "approved" will have their mail rejected). >> >> Could someone please explain how this doesn't directly contradict the >> core tenets of an open and inclusive community? > > (I do not intend to single out your post, just replying to the thread in > general here) > > I would like to ask people to stay respectful in their disagreement towards > the Council and their decision here. You might not agree with the decision, > but the Council is an elected body and was given these powers by the > developer community which they represent. Also I have no doubt that Council > members who voted for -dev moderation are aware of the counter arguments and > honestly expect a net positive effect from this. > > If you dislike mailing list moderation, campaign and/or vote in the next > period for candidates who want to reverse this decision. +1 for this, and also note that the whitelisting approach allows for those opposing to start a project for -dev ML moderation that is similar to editbugs and proxy maintenance as we currently have in the project. -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
On 03/22/2018 12:56 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Kristian Fiskerstrand schrieb: > >> Switching to mailman might have some good merits on its own, but as I >> understand it it isn't necessary for the proposal at hand, that can be >> solved using access control lists in mlmmj-process? > > I would advise caution that Council better not try to micro-manage Infra here. By all means, infra should do what they think is right, but this particular decision doesn't force infra to switch mailing list infrastructure. If they believe there are reasons to do so, by all means, but the decision doesn't result in On 03/20/2018 04:28 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: > There are still some issues with it infra side (archiving will still > have to use the old system) and moving mailing lists is going to be fun, > but them the breaks. -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
Rich Freeman schrieb: > Actually, I think it is more of a technical constraint. It is > basically impossible to blacklist somebody on a mailing list, since > all they need to do is roll up a new email address. > > I can think of various arguments for whitelisting or not whitelisting, > but it seems silly to blacklist. And how often did it actually happen that blacklisting was evaded on -dev mailing list? Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
Michael Palimaka schrieb: > I see that in bug #650964[1] Council is pushing forward again with > implementing user whitelisting on this mailing list (ie. anyone that is > not "approved" will have their mail rejected). > > Could someone please explain how this doesn't directly contradict the > core tenets of an open and inclusive community? (I do not intend to single out your post, just replying to the thread in general here) I would like to ask people to stay respectful in their disagreement towards the Council and their decision here. You might not agree with the decision, but the Council is an elected body and was given these powers by the developer community which they represent. Also I have no doubt that Council members who voted for -dev moderation are aware of the counter arguments and honestly expect a net positive effect from this. If you dislike mailing list moderation, campaign and/or vote in the next period for candidates who want to reverse this decision. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
Kristian Fiskerstrand schrieb: > Switching to mailman might have some good merits on its own, but as I > understand it it isn't necessary for the proposal at hand, that can be > solved using access control lists in mlmmj-process? I would advise caution that Council better not try to micro-manage Infra here. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
[gentoo-dev] New category: app-metrics
Hi everyone, I'm planning to add a new category app-metrics, which is mainly (at least for my own use case) going to be used for prometheus[0] and its exporters providing endpoints for prometheus. It can be used for other packages whose _main_ purpose is to provide metrics, transform or consume them. * net-analyzer/prometheus * app-admin/bind_exporter * app-admin/elasticsearch_exporter * app-admin/mongodb_exporter * app-admin/nginx-vts-exporter * app-admin/prom2json * dev-util/buildbot-prometheus In addition, the following packages will drop their prometheus- prefix during the package move: * net-analyzer/prometheus-blackbox_exporter * net-analyzer/prometheus-node_exporter * net-analyzer/prometheus-redis_exporter * net-analyzer/prometheus-snmp_exporter * net-analyzer/prometheus-uwsgi_exporter * net-analyzer/prometheus-pushgateway * net-analyzer/prometheus-alertmanager With the growing adoption of prometheus I expect more exporters to be added (I have five more that I want to add in the near future). Thanks, Manuel [0] https://prometheus.io signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
John Levine, author of "The Internet For Dummies," once set up a robo-moderation process for the Usenet newsgroup soc.religion.unitarian-univ (Unitarian Universalists). The group, along with most of Usenet, ultimately "died" due to lack of attention from the moderators, who failed to curb one of their own. However, the robo-moderator worked quite well, and still is technically in-place. The first post by a person generated an email to the poster to verify the email addres, and required the poster to reply with a confirmation. The posts then went through without anyone having to approve or whilelist things. If a poster subsequently became a "problem" their postings could be placed in a moderation required status, and some human would evelute the posts and handle the quelling of off-topic or flame generating posts. In extreme cases, posters could be banned for varying periods of time. The programs where quite powerful, and amazingly simple and elegant to implent. The source is available, and should be easily adapted for practically any system with bash shell hook capabilities. The infra team might want to look at that code and try something like it. Some addresses can be injected at setup time requiring human action before posts are approved (Rejected posts would be sent back to the perp requesting re-writing or abandoning. The moderators did not have to login anywhere to work with the bot, all interactions were done via email. The system is/was quite nice, and my mangled memories should not be the deciding factors when looking at it. Such a system might well serve as a means of allowing fully free entry into the list, while still providing the ability to control things if it gets out of hand. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:55 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: >> >> I can't tell, and I suspect other people can't either. >> > > This is the crux of the issue. Decisions involving people issues are > made behind closed doors, which means that others are not free to > confirm for themselves whether those actions are correct. This tends > to lead to ongoing debate over whether those decisions were > appropriate, with everybody arguing from their own knowledge, and the > only ones who know the information used to make the decision are > barred from talking about it. This is basically a debate where > participation is limited to the ignorant, at least as far as the > particular details go (the general principles are debated by all). > > That said, even if the decisions were made in the open I wouldn't > expect all to agree with them. > > Ultimately though there are pros and cons to making these kinds of > decisions in the open, and there is not universal agreement regarding > how these situations ought to be handled. We can either fight about > it until the end of time, or we can agree on some way to determine > what approach we are going to take and then support it (perhaps > begrudgingly). Right now the mechanism that we have in place is the > Council. The only other mechanism I could see that would make any > sense would be a referendum on the issue. That gets unwieldy if we > try to apply it to every little decision, but maybe for the big > picture issues it would make sense. > > However, I think a lot of people would be surprised at the outcome. > We all assume that we're all here for the same reasons, but as I > commented on my blog Gentoo is a bit unique among distros and many of > us are here for very different reasons, and have different priorities. > Also, there is sometimes a tendency to assume that all FOSS projects > work the same way. When I was listening to a talk about how one of > the BSDs dealt with these kinds of issues I was shocked to discover > that much of their dev communications happens on completely closed > lists (not just closed to posting, but to reading as well). Gentoo > has the gentoo-core list but it is very low traffic and it tends to be > used for things like swapping cell phone numbers before conferences. > When anything substantive comes up there are usually several people > who chime in to rightly point out that this talk belongs on a public > list. > > Bottom line is that there are a lot of different ways projects can > run, and they all have their pros and cons. A lot of the FOSS we > depend on actually gets built or discussed behind closed doors. I > doubt many of us want Gentoo to go that far, but I suspect there is a > lot of interest in taking smaller steps in that general direction. > > -- > Rich > -- G.Wolfe Woodbury redwo...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-dev] Project:Lisp without members
El mié, 21-03-2018 a las 10:51 +0200, Mart Raudsepp escribió: > Ühel kenal päeval, L, 10.03.2018 kell 13:26, kirjutas Pacho Ramos: > > From now Project:Lisp has no members... that doesn't seem an issue as > > it > > contains multiple subprojects that maintain relevant packages... but, > > for the > > case anyone wants to join the main project... > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Lisp > > This is a valid setup of projects to my knowledge. Please correct me if > I'm wrong. Don't undertake parent projects if they have subprojects > with active members please. In other words, please don't undertake a > project if it has active subprojects, if that was your mails intention > here. > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Lisp even lists subprojects and > their members as part of lisp project. Though it seems to have gotten a > direct member now too to prevent the implicit undertaking intention > (which I think is unnecessary). > > There were no "undertaking intention" for that parent project as the mail states showing no warning about removing it and even suggesting that "it doesn't seem an issue"... the intention was merely to inform people for the case someone wanted to joing the Project
Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:55 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: > > I can't tell, and I suspect other people can't either. > This is the crux of the issue. Decisions involving people issues are made behind closed doors, which means that others are not free to confirm for themselves whether those actions are correct. This tends to lead to ongoing debate over whether those decisions were appropriate, with everybody arguing from their own knowledge, and the only ones who know the information used to make the decision are barred from talking about it. This is basically a debate where participation is limited to the ignorant, at least as far as the particular details go (the general principles are debated by all). That said, even if the decisions were made in the open I wouldn't expect all to agree with them. Ultimately though there are pros and cons to making these kinds of decisions in the open, and there is not universal agreement regarding how these situations ought to be handled. We can either fight about it until the end of time, or we can agree on some way to determine what approach we are going to take and then support it (perhaps begrudgingly). Right now the mechanism that we have in place is the Council. The only other mechanism I could see that would make any sense would be a referendum on the issue. That gets unwieldy if we try to apply it to every little decision, but maybe for the big picture issues it would make sense. However, I think a lot of people would be surprised at the outcome. We all assume that we're all here for the same reasons, but as I commented on my blog Gentoo is a bit unique among distros and many of us are here for very different reasons, and have different priorities. Also, there is sometimes a tendency to assume that all FOSS projects work the same way. When I was listening to a talk about how one of the BSDs dealt with these kinds of issues I was shocked to discover that much of their dev communications happens on completely closed lists (not just closed to posting, but to reading as well). Gentoo has the gentoo-core list but it is very low traffic and it tends to be used for things like swapping cell phone numbers before conferences. When anything substantive comes up there are usually several people who chime in to rightly point out that this talk belongs on a public list. Bottom line is that there are a lot of different ways projects can run, and they all have their pros and cons. A lot of the FOSS we depend on actually gets built or discussed behind closed doors. I doubt many of us want Gentoo to go that far, but I suspect there is a lot of interest in taking smaller steps in that general direction. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > The community has a 'toxic people problem' Maybe certain people who feel they are being attacked are idiots and don't like hearing it? I can't tell, and I suspect other people can't either. Respectfully, R0b0t1
Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Eray Aslan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:44:48AM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: > > [1] Which isn't to say that I would accept 'orders' to commit crimes, or > > other obviously bad things. > > This is the crux of the problem. There are certain lines you will not > cross. I am saying that my line is different and by voicing that, > hopefully, making you re-consider yours. > > > I'm again asserting that this idea is not > > fundamentally bad. The community has a 'toxic people problem' and our > > previous attempts at resolution have not really produced great results. > > Will this also produce great results? Not sure. But willing to try it. > > Openness, transparency, inclusiveness. Those are some pretty > fundemental values. Reconsider. But if you decide to go ahead, I am > not going to judge you. You (or the council members who voted yes) are > not bad persons. Just somewhat different values - which is surprising > in a sad way. > I think of my aim is just playing a longer field here. I've been a part of Gentoo for a long time. I've considered leaving numerous times for a variety of reasons; yet I remain. I don't disagree that the issue is important, but leaving an organization really changes the velocity and direction of influence one can have on it. Traditionally I have not seen external contributors have a strong influence in Gentoo; so leaving to me implies a loss of influence. If my goal is to have a good outcome; I'm not convinced leaving accomplishes it. If I leave, will the council change their mind? Why would they? Perhaps you think myself (and other developers) should do more and I think that is a reasonable thing to advocate for; but I'm also fairly happy with a timeline of: 1) We add moderation in ~April. 2) Council election happens in summer (I expect something of a strong reckoning here, in terms of council makeup.) 3) Council` repeals the previous decision and we undo the moderation[1]. I tend to like this approach because I feel like its how the organization was designed to work. I think alternatives involve essentially 'protesting'. E.g. I could propose the council discuss this topic at every meeting. I could try to use my developer-ship to force extra council meetings (emergency meetings perhaps.) I could collect signatures. I'm still not convinced these things would be vehicles for change though. [1] There is of course the risk that this doesn't come about, either because the same council is re-elected or because the new council chooses not to repeal. But I accept this risk willingly. > -- > Eray > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:44:48AM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: > [1] Which isn't to say that I would accept 'orders' to commit crimes, or > other obviously bad things. This is the crux of the problem. There are certain lines you will not cross. I am saying that my line is different and by voicing that, hopefully, making you re-consider yours. > I'm again asserting that this idea is not > fundamentally bad. The community has a 'toxic people problem' and our > previous attempts at resolution have not really produced great results. > Will this also produce great results? Not sure. But willing to try it. Openness, transparency, inclusiveness. Those are some pretty fundemental values. Reconsider. But if you decide to go ahead, I am not going to judge you. You (or the council members who voted yes) are not bad persons. Just somewhat different values - which is surprising in a sad way. -- Eray
Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Eray Aslan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:28:48AM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote: > > While I personally do no agree with mailing list moderation infra has > > been tasked with moving forward on it. > > You can always resign from infra. > > That was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment but not wholly. You cant > cop out by saying it was an order from council. I understand if you > dont but do consider it. Fight the good fight. > So when there is conflict its pretty often that you have 3 options. 1) Accept 2) Leave 3) Escalate I'm not sure 3 is possible (the council is already the highest body). I also think that as a organization this is how we arranged it to be. Speaking for myself, this is not the worst issue I've seen in Gentoo and so I thing doing 2 is probably not very effective. Its also likely I can only do 2 once (because maybe I would not be welcome'd back or want to contribute anymore.) That leaves 1 and one interests me for many reasons. a) as noted earlier, decisions are not set in stone. Its possible we could turn on this whitelisting solution for a brief period and the decision is overturned at the next council meeting, or perhaps at the next council election once the existing council is replaced. b) I am never afraid of making mistakes. I too think this is a mistake; but I don't think its a critical mistake for the organization. Maybe I'm wrong though. c) I have a selfish interest to migrate off of mmlmj because I have an intense dislike (of the software) and I think we need a "modernized" list setup. So this effort is a driver to get some infra work done. d) Infra as a organization wields a lot of power in Gentoo and I think its organizationally dangerous to wield that power in this way. For example, if the entire infra team retired rather than implement this solution; or even worse, refused to retire but just didn't implement it. Ultimately Infrastructure is here to meet the needs of the distribution and if we are not doing that then we have failed as an organization.[1] e) In the past, infra *has* wielded its power in a fashion that had negative impacts on the distribution (e.g. arbitrarily removing commit rights for developers with no warning, process, or oversight). I think there is an additional focus in the the Infra team to avoid that sort of activity and "inaction is still action" and I think it results in similar repercussions. [1] Which isn't to say that I would accept 'orders' to commit crimes, or other obviously bad things. I'm again asserting that this idea is not fundamentally bad. The community has a 'toxic people problem' and our previous attempts at resolution have not really produced great results. Will this also produce great results? Not sure. But willing to try it. -A > > -- > Eray > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Begin a dev-libs/nodejs category?
On 03/21/2018 03:33 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 01:44:11 + > Herb Miller Jr. wrote: > >> If I am, then yes, some kind of automation >> would be the only sane way to keep up > In my experience you can't *really* rely on automation 100% for this > sort of thing. Not while achieving quality results. > > Its viable for an overlay where there's no expectations of quality, but > for the main tree, I find you want to have a human san-check everything > and manually vet each upstream version for "anomalous things". > > Automation is good at handling the "known predictable" cases, humans > are better at detecting "huh, that's weird, why did they do that?" > > Because you absolutely want to know if upstream added some stupid > change that is harmful to Gentoo users before you blindly replicate it. And I agree with you 100%. I would never rely on automation exclusively. I would use it to write boilerplate sections, check for updates, check for breakage, etc. I'd never open a PR for something I hadn't polished myself.
[gentoo-dev] Pypi generator (Was: [RFC] Begin a dev-libs/nodejs category?)
X dej writes: > I did not find anything wannabe "g-pip" for python. Check out app-portage/gs-pypi.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Mailing list moderation and community openness
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Eray Aslan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:28:48AM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote: >> While I personally do no agree with mailing list moderation infra has >> been tasked with moving forward on it. > > That was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment but not wholly. You cant > cop out by saying it was an order from council. I understand if you > dont but do consider it. Fight the good fight. Interesting. When exactly should we all start ignoring the Council, and when should we do what they say? And what is the likely result of that? For all the complaining of "cabals" in Gentoo it seems odd to suggest putting the final decisions of the one group that is about the least democratic in the organization. (That isn't really intended as a criticism: there are a lot of practical reasons why infra operates as it does and I've yet to come up with any better approach. With the council/trustees the authority comes from the collective, and nobody would pay attention to a directive that didn't have a majority backing or the appearance of due process. With any other project the decisions are appealable to council. With infra one guy with the root password can cause a lot of havoc, and the computer isn't going to stop and question what they're doing. That creates a lot of incentive to minimize the number of people who are trusted. In any case, I think it makes the most sense to do the decision-making in more open/democratic processes, and then minimize the execution footprint that requires "cabals.") As I've commented elsewhere [1] I think an issue here is that we just don't have enough of a critical mass to be able to afford to split along ideological lines. The set of developers interested in a source-based distro is barely sufficient to create a viable source-based distro. If you split it into the subsets who prefer open vs closed mailing lists on top of this then the individual groups lack critical mass. And so we're forced to co-exist, and agree on one or the other, or some kind of compromise. 1 - https://rich0gentoo.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/gentoo-ought-to-be-about-choice/ -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Begin a dev-libs/nodejs category?
2018-03-21 2:44 UTC+01:00, Herb Miller Jr. : >>> When I did my homework on creating nodejs ebuilds (not nodejs itself >>> but packages written in node), it seems the topic has come up a few >>> times in the past but the time commitment and general disorganization >>> of upstream has scared off any serious attempts at packaging. Dear Herb, I would like to make sure that you knew about the disorganized and outdated attempt named app-portage/g-npm: URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/Gentoo/comments/38txil/how_do_you_guys_manage_languagespecific_package/ Title: "How do you guys manage language-specific package managers (npm, gem, pip, etc)? : Gentoo" I found out about that while trying to make an ebuild for www-apps/etherpad-lite-1.2.91, see https://bugs.gentoo.org/328897 for that. You might also want to know about that attempt: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1064550-start-0.html titled "Portage and NodeJS and similarity with Python, Perl, etc." Perl monks using gentoo might want to know about app-portage/g-cpan, see first URL above. I just found out that app-portage/g-octave app-portage/g-sorcery existed. I did not find anything wannabe "g-pip" for python. -- xdej@#gentoo-prefix
Re: [gentoo-dev] Project:Lisp without members
Ühel kenal päeval, L, 10.03.2018 kell 13:26, kirjutas Pacho Ramos: > From now Project:Lisp has no members... that doesn't seem an issue as > it > contains multiple subprojects that maintain relevant packages... but, > for the > case anyone wants to join the main project... > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Lisp This is a valid setup of projects to my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Don't undertake parent projects if they have subprojects with active members please. In other words, please don't undertake a project if it has active subprojects, if that was your mails intention here. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Lisp even lists subprojects and their members as part of lisp project. Though it seems to have gotten a direct member now too to prevent the implicit undertaking intention (which I think is unnecessary).
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Begin a dev-libs/nodejs category?
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 01:44:11 + Herb Miller Jr. wrote: > If I am, then yes, some kind of automation > would be the only sane way to keep up In my experience you can't *really* rely on automation 100% for this sort of thing. Not while achieving quality results. Its viable for an overlay where there's no expectations of quality, but for the main tree, I find you want to have a human san-check everything and manually vet each upstream version for "anomalous things". Automation is good at handling the "known predictable" cases, humans are better at detecting "huh, that's weird, why did they do that?" Because you absolutely want to know if upstream added some stupid change that is harmful to Gentoo users before you blindly replicate it. pgp0LJHitrNJn.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-perl/WWW-Bugzilla
# Kent Fredric (21 Mar 2018) # Not usable with versions of Bugzilla shipped by Gentoo since 2013, # Dead upstream. Use dev-perl/BZ-Client instead. # Removal in 30 days. Bug 651056 dev-perl/WWW-Bugzilla pgpOQtW1bOeQa.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature