On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:25:23 -0500
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] The previous doc had no "moral weight", so to
> speak, because it was imposed on devs without any real discussion, and
> that's made it hard to enforce. Moreover, there's long been notable
> distrust of devrel,
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Then why are there public archives?
>>
>
> Note the subtle difference between "receiving" and "reading in public
> archives". Some people may prefer their mail client.
Disallowing someone from receiving mail from the list just to make it
possibly
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 01:25, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Ubuntu uses "Community Council". I suggested "Community Relations".
> *Shrug*
"Community Relations" sounds fine to me.
>
> Here's my problem with it: essentially what you're arguing for the
> proctors to be is the same as what devrel should
070314 Marius Mauch wrote:
> Why does this have to be rushed so quickly?
> Just to "fight" the bad PR caused by the distrowatch article?
As a user for 3.5 years & an observer who has read this thread,
but started deleting the original abusive thread as soon as it got going,
I'ld say Council has ha
Robin H. Johnson wrote: [Tue Mar 13 2007, 06:05:10PM CDT]
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > * Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please?
> > Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first
> > one that came to mind.
> Suggestions welcom
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Thanks for the work on the new doc; it's much appreciated.
>
> Despite how critical I'm being, I really do appreciate the work that
> has gone into this so far. Thank you very much.
+1
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
ge
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:05:10 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > * Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please?
> > Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first
> > one that came to mi
[replying here as it already cleared out a couple of things i wanted
to ask]
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 05:19:03PM +, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> 3. The proctors would be given the access required to execute any
> suspensions or similar actions.
Please define access. Does that mean they get to
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 20:24 +, Richard Brown wrote:
>> Why is it a such a problem to be clear? The council is proposing changes
>> that affect us all, giving us two days to discuss it, and then a council
>> member is shouting at someone when he says he thinks the CoC i
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> * Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please?
> Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first
> one that came to mind.
Suggestions welcome. We were stuck for other suitable names, and it was
my own suggest
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 16:00 +0100, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
Uhh, no. This gets enforced on devs and users alike.
I wouldn't bring it up in the first place, but we've had previous examples
with devs calling other devs not so kind things and to my knowle
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> * Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please?
> Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first
> one that came to mind.
+1, i think i haven't ever heard that word before, and it sounds quite
empty to me as
Thanks for the write-up :)
| Receiving one (or more) warnings. Usually, you wouldn't be banned for
| a single warning, but it might happen if we feel your infraction is
| severe enough. We consider banning to be pretty serious; we take each
| situation on a case-by-case basis and make sure we alw
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
Hiya all,
As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christe
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 22:09, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Thanks for the work on the new doc; it's much appreciated.
> Despite how critical I'm being, I really do appreciate the work that
> has gone into this so far. Thank you very much.
I agree on all points.
--
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervo
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 20:24 +, Richard Brown wrote:
> Why is it a such a problem to be clear? The council is proposing changes
> that affect us all, giving us two days to discuss it, and then a council
> member is shouting at someone when he says he thinks the CoC is unclear?
I am shouting at
Thanks for the work on the new doc; it's much appreciated.
Here's some comments, in no particularly good order:
* Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please?
Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first
one that came to mind.
> As some of you are already aware, I was
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> What exactly do previous examples have to do with us saying that our
> past efforts didn't work and our trying to come up with a *new* way of
> doing these things to not repeat past problems/mistakes?
>
> Let me just clarify this.
>
> We don't care how things were done i
On 13/03/07, Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:01:33 +
"Jeff Rollin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> UTC and GMT being the same, right? so 2100UTC is exactly nine hours
> after 1200GMT?
For all relevant purposes, yes.
--
Tyvm.
--
Q: What will happen in the Aft
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:01:33 +
"Jeff Rollin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> UTC and GMT being the same, right? so 2100UTC is exactly nine hours
> after 1200GMT?
For all relevant purposes, yes.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 13/03/07, Christel Dahlskjaer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hiya all,
Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in
order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at
2100UTC.
UTC and GMT being the same, right? so 2100UTC is exactly nine hours
after 1
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 17:15 +, Steve Long wrote:
> Maybe there should be an ethical/behavioural element to the dev-exam, so
> that prospective devs see that being able to work with others is needed as
> much as technical proficiency, dunno. But I'm glad things appear to be
> changing for the be
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:45:09
+:
> Duncan wrote:
>> Has anyone stopped to think... he might have an ulterior motive here?
>>
>> Clearly, it's trolling, the quote above should demonstrate that beyond
>> doubt. However,
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 16:00 +0100, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
> > Uhh, no. This gets enforced on devs and users alike.
> I wouldn't bring it up in the first place, but we've had previous examples
> with devs calling other devs not so kind things and to my knowledge it didn't
> result in an
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 14:38 +, Duncan wrote:
> Perhaps if infra doesn't want to hassle read-only mode and prefers a full
> mail ban, mention could be made of gmane for those who wish to continue
> read-only access.
I think we'd point people to http://archives.gentoo.org instead.
--
Chris G
Hi,
And first, thanks for the work done.
I'd like to make a few comments about this Code of Conduct.
Over the past years, Gentoo has been organised over a large part of
paper-rules, and other theorical precepts. But human nature is just not
theorical. And therefore, we have to constantly ada
Hi,
And first, thanks for the work done.
I'd like to make a few comments about this Code of Conduct.
Over the past years, Gentoo has been organised over a large part of
paper-rules, and other theorical precepts. But human nature is just not
theorical. And therefore, we have to constantly ad
Hi again.
Thank you all for your input so far, which I will evaluate together with
my trusted mentourage, er, the council. I'd just like to clarify a
couple of things that seem to have left a few of you confused:
1. The Proctors is not a Userrel Sub project. The Code of Conduct would
apply to eve
On Tuesday 13 March 2007, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> On 3/13/07, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was trying to show spb that reading personal attacks against oneself in
> > this forum is not a nice feeling. It was a stupid, priggish thing to do.
>
> Ya think?
adding sarcastic replies to the
On Tuesday 13 March 2007, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> The scripts installed by these ebuilds also use which:
> sys-kernel/module-rebuild:
that's a different issue ... this is a Linux-only package, so it can "safely"
depend on the behavior of the which app that is installed onto our Linux
hosts
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> ps. I would also like to suggest that the devrels looks at things like
> micro bans. That is, banning someone for a couple of days from sending to
> the mailing list. This could be effective against e.g. people who continue
> to feed trolls after being warned not to do so.
On 3/13/07, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Duncan wrote:
> Has anyone stopped to think... he might have an ulterior motive here?
>
> Clearly, it's trolling, the quote above should demonstrate that beyond
> doubt. However, one must ask what the reason might be for such
> deliberate trolls.
Duncan wrote:
> Has anyone stopped to think... he might have an ulterior motive here?
>
> Clearly, it's trolling, the quote above should demonstrate that beyond
> doubt. However, one must ask what the reason might be for such
> deliberate trolls.
>
Yes it was, and I apologise unreservedly both to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:10:21 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, mlmmj doesn't have this sort of feature. Instead, it has a more
>> procmail-like access list. We can use that to put users into a
>> read-only status, by filtering for them and denyi
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:10:21 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, mlmmj doesn't have this sort of feature. Instead, it has a more
> procmail-like access list. We can use that to put users into a
> read-only status, by filtering for them and denying posting from them,
> but th
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 15:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> We should be enforcing this on all channels. It shouldn't be "OK" to be
> an asshole on one medium and not another.
Ack.
> > -What are the appeal options if any?
>
> Council.
Then it should perhaps be mentioned in the proposal.
> > So the
Duncan wrote:
> As an alternative [...] the list is carried by gmane.org [...]
There also would be http://archives.gentoo.org/
so those users also wouldnt be dependent on a service not run by gentoo.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 13 Mar
2007 07:30:39 -0400:
> My other item (you knew there'd be at least one more :) is something I
> brought up on irc yesterday, namely (if its feasible with infra)
> downgrading a subscription to read-only
"Andrey Falko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 3/12/07, Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > as nattfodd and ehmsen won't be working on TeX for Gentoo anymore,
> > we need one or more new maintainer/s. Primary goal is to bring a
> > working ebuild of TeXLive 2007 into Portage, as the cur
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 14:01 +0100, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2007 13:32, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> >
> > First of all, I think most part of the code is just common sense. That's
> > also the reason that it is not explicit about many things. Strictly defined
> > rules don'
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 09:34 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:28:50 -0400
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 07:30 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> > > banning/suspending a user from a mailing list. They would retain the
> > > right to r
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:28:50 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 07:30 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> > banning/suspending a user from a mailing list. They would retain the
> > right to receive the mail, just not comment for a short period (and
> > hopefully
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 07:30 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> banning/suspending a user from a mailing list. They would retain the
> right to receive the mail, just not comment for a short period (and
> hopefully cooler heads will prevail, yada, etc.).
You mean the privilege to receive the mails, r
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 13:32, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>
> First of all, I think most part of the code is just common sense. That's
> also the reason that it is not explicit about many things. Strictly defined
> rules don't apply in all situations, and jerks find ways around them or to
> argue that
On 3/13/07, Andrey Falko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/12/07, Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> as nattfodd and ehmsen won't be working on TeX for Gentoo anymore, we
It's sad to hear this. However I didn't see this mentioned in bug
#168177 nor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
Hiya all,
As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christe
On 3/12/07, Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
as nattfodd and ehmsen won't be working on TeX for Gentoo anymore, we
need one or more new maintainer/s. Primary goal is to bring a working
ebuild of TeXLive 2007 into Portage, as the current used and working
one (teTeX) is de
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 13:05, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
> I wrote to Christel earlier today about this. But AFAIR we usually have at
> least a week to discuss such proposals. Apart from that enforcing our users
> this code of conduct with only three days of discussion is not what I find
>
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 13:05, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
> http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk/branches/1.2/channels/chan_sip.c?r1=580
>52&r2=56230
Woops just disregard that paste in the middle of it all:-) My mouse is severly
lacking on this box while compiling :-(
--
Sune Kloppenborg
Hiya,
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 03:12, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> Hiya all,
>
> As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
> given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
> Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
> proposal
Heyas Christel,
A few quick comments - the document specifically calls out the
gentoo-dev mailing list (for obvious reasons in the last week or two),
but never identifies any other part of "Gentoo's official
communication infrastructure". While I completely understand the
intent, the scope might w
On Dienstag, 13. März 2007, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 19:15 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 12 March 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > instead, since we require bash for our ebuilds, use the builtin `type
> > > -p`
> >
> > err i botched that ;)
> >
> > `type -p` is almost a
On Dienstag, 13. März 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> ./eclass/vdr-plugin.eclass:
>if which md5sum >/dev/null 2>&1; then
^^ fixed
Matthias
--
Matthias Schwarzott (zzam)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 13/03/07, Christel Dahlskjaer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hiya all,
As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
proposal can be found
On 13/03/07, Christel Dahlskjaer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hiya all,
As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
proposal can be found
55 matches
Mail list logo
