[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grab
The following packages need some love and/or a new maintainer: Previously maintained by Thierry Carrez (Koon): - dev-embedded/gnap - dev-embedded/gnap-dev - dev-embedded/gnap-ext Previously maintainer by Eric Sammer (esammer): - net-nntp/udh Previously maintained by Chris White (ChrisWhite): - app-misc/gnutu - app-misc/screenie - app-pda/syncekonnector (pda herd ?) - dev-cpp/Ice (cpp herd ?) - dev-lang/swig (lang-misc herd ?) - dev-perl/Apache-AuthCookie (assigned to the perl herd) - dev-perl/Apache-AuthTicket (assigned to the perl herd) - dev-perl/Cache (assigned to the perl herd) - dev-perl/Eidetic (assigned to the perl herd) - dev-perl/File-NFSLock (assigned to the perl herd) - dev-perl/Fuse (assigned to the perl herd) - dev-perl/Mail-Sender (assigned to the perl herd) - dev-perl/SQL-Abstract (assigned to the perl herd) - dev-perl/Sort-Tree (assigned to the perl herd) - dev-util/cflow - media-libs/panda3d (sound herd ?) - media-video/y4mscaler (assigned to the video herd) - net-analyzer/mwcollect (net-mon herd ?) - net-dns/rbldnsd - net-misc/sitecopy Regards, Christian -- Christian Heim phreak at gentoo.org GPG key ID: 9A9F68E6 Fingerprint: AEC4 87B8 32B8 4922 B3A9 DF79 CAE3 556F 9A9F 68E6 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 19:51 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:44:03 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To future devs and any new contributing users, they will see -dev as a ml for developer interaction. They will see -project as a place for interaction with the community. Wouldn't that be, uh, -user? No because that's where people go for help. Or to discuss usage of Gentoo. -project would be for people or etc looking to contribute to the Gentoo project. Development and etc for anyone outside of the Gentoo project :) But -dev is where the substantial discussion takes place. -dev would still be the inside loop. And a community based project simply should not exclude/reduce (even simply in perception) the community's involvement in that loop. Correct me if I'm reading you wrong but you seem, in your choice of words, to be relegating non-devs to being outside of the Gentoo project. And that is exactly the attitude we need to steer clear of, and exactly the DNA that this proposal would inject. I love/admire/adore/have great gratitude for our developers. They are certainly part of this project. But, even as a lowly user - I am also. Or perhaps I've just been reading too much Marx... W. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christian Heim wrote: The following packages need some love and/or a new maintainer: - dev-lang/swig (lang-misc herd ?) will take this if no-one else wants it, Marijn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGmKfAp/VmCx0OL2wRAr/KAKC+bTrGMJh0xfv/in0Jo8tbKMEB3wCdGWU2 eWXcXaFGWjJC5Wpeu8CAfPI= =ksYC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: So long Gentoo...
Mike Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] yazmış: For many reasons, I'm choosing to take my leave from Gentoo at this time. While this was in part brought on by the recent discussions about the mailing lists, it's related to many other things as well. Mainly, I don't have the motivation that I used to have to work on Gentoo. I feel like my efforts are being stymied by the lack of overall technical progress and direction in the project. I'm not abandoning open source altogether; I'll still be working on a few projects here and there. I'll still be around on IRC if I'm needed for anything. I regret not having fully completed my GLEP-27 implementation, but my code is still available for anyone who wants to do the few remaining bits (mainly, incorporate it with portage, and patch shadow to allow it to work on an alternate /etc/passwd,shadow,group etc). I have a few helpful scripts for Vim maintenance that I can give to whomever wants them (nelchael probably, don't if anyone else is going help him out). Also, my apologizes to anyone else that I had said I would help out. If you still need me, you can track me down on IRC and I can at least give you some pointers (but probably not much in the way of code). As for SoC this year, I'll still be available to mentor as much as I can, on IRC and by email. Best of luck with Gentoo. Sorry to see you go... The vim herd could really use some more people so I added myself to it today. I'll be happy if you can mail me the scripts you used for maintenance. -- ali polatel (hawking) pgpD8b5Fi029G.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Packages up for grab
Christian Heim schrieb: - net-analyzer/mwcollect (net-mon herd ?) Herd-absorbage ;) -Jokey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007/08
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 07:01:52PM +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote: Until now I haven't had time to actually think about accepting it, but i hope everything around me calms down a bit in the next days. I hereby accept the nomination. I may write up a longer manifest some time, but fwiw i will try to push the council into a more open direction. The recent development of council meetings and their summaries not being posted (or at least very late) to the list makes me think that there is some alienation between council and developers, which i hope i can change. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org forum-mods (at) gentoo.org #gentoo-forums (freenode) pgpm2IQO6hdcz.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Christina Fullam wrote: I think everyone is overlooking the part included previously: An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev emails on a timeout, pick a number of hours, and then the email if not moderated would be released. (non-dev sends his email, time period expires and no one booted it, so the email rolls through) This means that non-dev emails will still be sent to the list, just at a delay. This same delay can and will be exercised against developers if the developer demonstrates a justification for it. This also means that non-dev input will be accepted and viewed as it always has, the only change is that there is a delay. Then what, exactly, is the damned point? The problem this is supposedly intended to solve is that -dev is too high-volume. This solution requires people to actually put MORE effort into reading -dev than they previously did. No one is going to actually do any monitoring, so all you've done is made posts from non-dev accounts time delayed. Why? -- dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed gentoo org it could suck an ancient virus from the sea 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Smoother moderation scheme?
Alin Năstac wrote: Do you have a solution to filter flamefests out of a ml? If you do, please share it with the list. Please give one example of a mailing list plagued by flamefests that successfully solved their problems by adopting moderation without completely alienating their communities. This is a death march. -- dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed gentoo org it could suck an ancient virus from the sea 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: -core Internal Private List, Public R/O after period of time -core Internal Private List, Public R/O after period of time No. -core should not ever be public. It's not for development anyway. -core contains things like personal issues the developers are having, phone numbers, street addresses, stuff on conferences, meeting times, job offers, etc. -- nothing that the entire world should have access to, not even after time has gone by. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 20:20 +1000, Will Briggs wrote: But -dev is where the substantial discussion takes place. -dev would still be the inside loop. And a community based project simply should not exclude/reduce (even simply in perception) the community's involvement in that loop. Well forgetting list names for a second. Put the problem another way. There is no list at the moment, internal developers could use to communicate only with other internal developers. Sure we could use -core, but that's more for private stuff. Devs might want to interact directly with other devs, without any outside input. But do it in a transparent manner to keep the community informed and a part of the process. Just not a part with input. That does not mean the community is excluded. It's just sometimes you can have to many opinions, and the ones a times that matter the most are the ones actually doing the work. Which in turn become responsible for it. Correct me if I'm reading you wrong but you seem, in your choice of words, to be relegating non-devs to being outside of the Gentoo project. And that is exactly the attitude we need to steer clear of, and exactly the DNA that this proposal would inject. It's just levels of separation as the organization grows. It's not an attitude of separation, it's organization. It's not meant personally. Fact is there are those inside the project and those outside. That's not a good or bad thing, just how things are. There is no means for those inside to work directly with each others without outside influence. Not that the outside influence is not wanted, that's not the point at all. It's purely about focus. If we see a problem say on -dev, in the future. We know that's an internal problem devs are trying to resolve or etc. Likely to get more focus and/or prioritization. Fact is -dev's volume is getting to the point where it's productivity is diminishing. Both with dev - dev and dev - world. The entire idea here is to help correct that and makes things BETTER :) Many will admit there are big problems now. This is just one attempt, one way to address it. I love/admire/adore/have great gratitude for our developers. They are certainly part of this project. But, even as a lowly user - I am also. FYI, every developer was a user at some point. In many ways they still are. This by no means is intended to diminish, cut off, control, etc any user input. That would effectively cut off any future recruiting efforts. Which is not the idea at all. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007/08
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 17:45 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote: The recent development of council meetings and their summaries not being posted (or at least very late) to the list makes me think that there is some alienation between council and developers, which i hope i can change. While any efforts you put forth if elected to the council will appreciated. Let's not take a malicious stance against our current council. I don't thing they are intentionally alienating, or delaying in summaries. Anyone notice no more GWNs? IMHO they like many of us are simply over committed. So things don't always get done in reasonable or ideal time frames. I doubt there is any intentional delay in presenting the summaries and etc. Then again, their meetings aren't held in private, and one should not solely rely on summaries. Unless there is a policy stating such summaries are required or etc. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 10:25 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote: William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: -core Internal Private List, Public R/O after period of time -core Internal Private List, Public R/O after period of time No. -core should not ever be public. It's not for development anyway. -core contains things like personal issues the developers are having, phone numbers, street addresses, stuff on conferences, meeting times, job offers, etc. -- nothing that the entire world should have access to, not even after time has gone by. I am neutral. -core can remain permanently private, or be opened up. Just seemed like a decent idea for full and complete transparency. Granted personal info/data, names, addresses, etc, ideally would need to be scrubbed. Probably just best to err on the side of cautiousness and keep private forever. If people have a problem with transparency. I am sorry, I don't know of many if any organizations that are 100% transparent. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Smoother moderation scheme?
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 10:24 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: Alin Năstac wrote: Do you have a solution to filter flamefests out of a ml? If you do, please share it with the list. Please give one example of a mailing list plagued by flamefests that successfully solved their problems by adopting moderation without completely alienating their communities. With two lists we could potentially reduce a single unified bonfire into two controlled burns :) -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007/08
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 01:29:35PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: I don't thing they are intentionally alienating, or delaying in summaries. Most likely not, but still something i'd like to change. ;-) cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org forum-mods (at) gentoo.org #gentoo-forums (freenode) pgpNjzZ7bJcWJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
GWN (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007/08)
* William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [07/07/14 13:29 -0400]: Anyone notice no more GWNs? Well, I noticed it. And I read the news from June 14 on http://www.gentoo.org/ Unfortunately, all our GWN-Editors stop working on it after some months. It's a really time-consuming job. Think about four to five hours just for collecting all articles, put some glue between them, create the XML and posting it on the list. And count in another four to five hours for writing most of the stuff yourself (which is the default, as the contributions are very rare). So, currently we don't have a GWN for two months already. It was our main publicity medium for telling users about the current development inside Gentoo, showing the faces of some devs and notice them about updates in the tree. We have other media which can compensate the GWN, like the Forums, the GLSAs, the dev-mailinglist etc. But the GWN was a good compendium of all. Don't let it die! Regards, Lars -- Lars Weiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-171-1963258 Instant Messaging : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Linux PowerPC : Developer Gentoo Infrastructure : CVS Administrator pgpmVpnfsnuKP.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] New developer: Pierre-Yves Rofes (p-y)
It's a joint pleasure for me and diox to introduce to you Pierre-Yves py Rofes. Instead of the snake people he will be joining our security team. Py originates from Paris, France, and has just finished his studies in computer science. He'll be hired soon (or maybe already was?) as a security network engineer for a small consulting company. As for the usual personal side of things this is how he describes his hobbies: Except from gentoo, I like sport, especially rowing and handball (I won the national rowing championship in 2001 when I was in high school in 2001). Please give him the usual flamy welcome. Regards, Petteri and Dimitry. (We worked together on this one) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Pierre-Yves Rofes (p-y)
On 7/14/07, Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a joint pleasure for me and diox to introduce to you Pierre-Yves py Rofes. Instead of the snake people he will be joining our security team. Please give him the usual flamy welcome. PyWelcome! -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:13:53 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I should cut it, but I'm leaving it so you see what I'm responding to. Seemant, thanks. On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:33 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: *sigh* It seems impossible to have any sort of discussion with you (unless one is in agreement with you, of course, and then one is clear headed) without eliciting a *sigh* -- I don't think it's particularly the healthiest way to have one. If you simply don't like disagreement, then please be clear about that. Why is it that everyone always assumes everything the Council does is out to get Ciaran rather than something we see as a good global solution to our current problems? Well, it would be great if the council can clearly outline what exactly our current problems are. Maybe if you presented those problems and then presented the proposed solutions to them, things would be easier to understand? Here's a little hint for all of you conspiracy theorists out there. If all we wanted was to get rid of Ciaran, we'd just have a fucking vote to get rid of Ciaran and make all of this *SO* much simpler on ourselves. This is again a disparaging and unhealthy way to have a discussion. I'm going to request that if you will respond to my notes, please do so with some modicum of civility and respect. If you find yourself unable to do so, then please do not respond to me at all. We're trying to solve the problem of people, *ALL* people, treating each other like complete crap on our lists. The problem has been an issue of discipline. We've simply got too many people who are too scared to take any actions to resolve these problems. Why do you think Developer Relations has all of these procedures and policies for retiring developers? Is it because we need all of that to determine if someone has crossed the line? No. It's because we have a large number of developers (or possibly even just a very vocal minority) who complain about every single damn thing anyone ever does and it has been much simpler to make up these ridiculous guidelines and rules to follow in an attempt to curb the dissenters than it is to just deal with them. Well, your own method of responding to my note is a good example of treating others like crap. How do we solve that? The problem with moderation is that nobody censors speech with which they agree, but quick to censor that with which they don't. So, here we have an example of one of the possible problems that you alluded to earlier: a vocal minority unable to pick its battles, and which engages in endless nitpicking. Why not just have the fucking vote to get rid of [them] and make all of this *SO* much simpler on ourselves then? Why should the vast majority of people on this list have to pay for what is, evidently, a minority? If, on the other hand, it's not a minority, then doesn't that indicate that the issue is on a deeper level? And if so, wouldn't it be more prudent to try and solve that one, instead? I say drop the rules to something simple that makes sense, boot the troublemakers, and ignore the dissenters. I'll gladly help anyone make up any procmail recipes they need to filter their mail. Let's get back to developing and leave the politics to Obama and Hillary. This is a little worrisome, you know. Perhaps you didn't mean this set of statements to sound as all-encompassing as all that. Isn't dissent and disagreement the result of differing points of view, which could actually benefit Gentoo? My thought is this: everyone should try and evaluate their own behaviour on this list, and the method in which they treat others. If each of us actually thought about the effects of our attitudes, this discussion might well be moot. Thanks, Seemant Regards, - -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6-ecc01.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGmSCmQa6M3+I///cRAkgdAJ9iEiEccwXHhpobT30s7k8CTvf8JACdGMgd 1flKq6L+B4LhqrMnx9Zveic= =qIVf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Pierre-Yves Rofes (p-y)
Petteri Räty wrote: Py originates from Paris, France, The French conspiracy is growing again :) Bienvenue à toi :) Rémi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Smoother moderation scheme?
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 10:24 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: Alin N?stac wrote: Do you have a solution to filter flamefests out of a ml? If you do, please share it with the list. Please give one example of a mailing list plagued by flamefests that successfully solved their problems by adopting moderation without completely alienating their communities. With two lists we could potentially reduce a single unified bonfire into two controlled burns :) You already have two lists. Your argument that core is for more private stuff, but not developer communication seems odd. My impression (never having seen a core message) is that core doesn't actually function that well, since dev v dev flames spill onto this list. If you are saying that all developer discussion is supposed to happen on dev, fine, but I really do not understand why that should mean users are not allowed to contribute as you suggested in your other post. As for moderation, the simple fact is that your devs have neither the time nor the experience to do such a job. The ones that have the inclination should probably be kept from it, in the same way that those who lust after power should never get it. If you want the list to function of course you need to have moderators who can suspend access or warn people to back off. When my access was suspended, I didn't like it but I accepted the team's decision-- because it was a team decision, from experienced moderators, not just the decision of some random dev. Good luck with reinventing everything and discussing the same stuff you have for the last year that led to the formation of the Proctors. I accept that the decision to disband them has been taken, although it seems odd that no notification of the meeting which led to this latest change was given. Obviously I think this is a major strategic error, and it's sad that rather than one member admit a mistake, the present Council has to override the consensus that took so long to reach. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] qmail.eclass draft
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 05:37:16PM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote: We are all required to subscribe to this mailing list... Should be easy enough to spot the thread. You know, sometimes I get tired of all the flames and pointless discussions and mark all mails as read. If something should be read by a certain person, it's usually better to send it to the list *and* CC the person in question. Greets, Michael -- http://hansmi.ch/ pgpYzKszrBXim.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] qmail.eclass draft
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 07:05:51PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote: Actually i am qmail maintainer and also been in the qmail herd for quite some time... No, actually you're in the qmail herd and maintainer of the net-mail/qmail-ldap package. This doesn't make you a netqmail (the package I care about) maintainer. Greets, Michael -- http://hansmi.ch/ pgpiM8eZ396UK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] qmail.eclass draft
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:04:27PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote: qmail-ldap will not be removed for sure, since i maintain it currently. Okay, my status there was outdated. We were at least discussing it at some point in history. And as the netqmail ebuild maintainer, I want the ebuild to be as simple as possible, that is, no external dependencies where possible. so, you suggest it is a better way to duplicate tons of code in 4 ebuilds? I'll think about it. appearantly, you are subscribed to gentoo-dev. … which doesn't necessarily mean I read it. On a sidenote, qmail has a huge amount of open bugs, and has generally gotten no love in the past time, so i wonder if it actually was/is maintained. qmail != netqmail. To my knowledge, we have only one outstanding bug there, the one with man pages colliding, nothing critical. Since I also have other things in life with higher priorities than Gentoo, it has to wait. However, I should get to it during the week or at latest two weeks. Greets, Michael -- http://hansmi.ch/ pgpI6401kiaE1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
Christina Fullam wrote: I think everyone is overlooking the part included previously: (non-dev sends his email, time period expires and no one booted it, so the email rolls through) Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then what, exactly, is the damned point? The problem this is supposedly intended to solve is that -dev is too high-volume. This solution requires people to actually put MORE effort into reading -dev than they previously did. No one is going to actually do any monitoring, so all you've done is made posts from non-dev accounts time delayed. Why? I suppose the problem is high-volume and excessive flaming/trolling/OT. The proposed solution asks that every developer take an active role, yes, so that could easily equal more work - but I have little doubts that there are developers that will take an interest in doing it. However, all that aside, here is another way this change could be implemented: -core stays private. I really dont see the need to change IMO. -project (call it what you will) would be for the off topic, non development emails that we so commonly see. this list would be optional for all developers. -dev (no preference for the name) would be for development discussion for devs and non-devs alike. everyone would all start out on a whitelist. any developer could opt to move a dev or non-dev to the moderated list (meaning their emails would be delayed allowing for moderation or simple release after a given time period). The check and balance for this would be that if any developer was found to be moderating someone unnecessarily, that developer themself would be moved to the moderated list by devrel for a time period without any access rights to change anything further themselves. Repeat offenders would be reviewed by devrel for further action if needed. this list would be required for all developers. I dont think for a moment that it is only non-devs causing this excessive amount of email which often results in flaming/trolling. I do agree that everyone should be bound by the same rules. Thoughts? -- Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Smoother moderation scheme?
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 21:48 +0100, Steve Long wrote: You already have two lists. Your argument that core is for more private stuff, but not developer communication seems odd. Well we need two development type of lists. The first question we ask any new devs on our quizzes is When is it appropriate to post to gentoo-core rather than gentoo-dev? I would answer that, but I would be answering a quiz question. Of which the answer can be found in our online documentation. but I really do not understand why that should mean users are not allowed to contribute as you suggested in your other post. If two devs are having an issue they are trying to work out. Community involvement is likely to make that issue larger and worse. Which could result in a user siding with a dev, dev getting upset and bailing or etc. Instead of the two devs left to work out their problems on their own. If they can't they take it to devrel or etc. When users get involved in that, it mucks things up. We then have to start using words like moderation and etc. As for moderation, the simple fact is that your devs have neither the time nor the experience to do such a job. I have some ideas there that I need to run by others first. I will then GLEP it and put it out there for all :) Good luck with reinventing everything and discussing the same stuff you have for the last year that led to the formation of the Proctors. Making changes and evolving is not reinvention. Quit many things aren't being changed. I accept that the decision to disband them has been taken, although it seems odd that no notification of the meeting which led to this latest change was given. Pretty sure there are always notifications of council meetings. Although not sure such notification is required per any policy. Obviously I think this is a major strategic error, and it's sad that rather than one member admit a mistake, the present Council has to override the consensus that took so long to reach. Reversing a past decision is itself a form a admitting a mistake or error. Or that trying something new didn't work as expected or etc. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] qmail.eclass draft
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:22:47AM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: It seems like you aren't interested in communication with the maintainer, otherwise you would've CC'ed me. Erm? This was completely uncalled for, I'd say?! To Jakub: It was. Sending such things to a public list is fine, as long as the affected persons get informed, too. Otherwise it can be seen like a complaint behind someone's back. I'm sure you've experience with that, do you? Looking at traffic going both ways I don't think it was meant harshly or etc. More a surprise to the current maintainer. Indeed it was surprising. “Who is he to come around with such a thing on a public list, without CC'ing me?” But usually, not sure if it's stated in policy, it's best to try to contact a maintainer first, directly. Such a thing wouldn't even have to be in policy. It's just common sense. Anyway, let's end it here and get back to technical stuff. Greets, Michael -- http://hansmi.ch/ pgpZmaI9WrlEr.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes
Christina Fullam wrote: I suppose the problem is high-volume and excessive flaming/trolling/OT. The proposed solution asks that every developer take an active role, yes, so that could easily equal more work - but I have little doubts that there are developers that will take an interest in doing it. However, all that aside, here is another way this change could be implemented: -core stays private. I really dont see the need to change IMO. Agreed. -project (call it what you will) would be for the off topic, non development emails that we so commonly see. this list would be optional for all developers. Agreed. Though off-topic could be replaced by non-technical. -dev (no preference for the name) would be for development discussion for devs and non-devs alike. everyone would all start out on a whitelist. any developer could opt to move a dev or non-dev to the moderated list (meaning their emails would be delayed allowing for moderation or simple release after a given time period). The check and balance for this would be that if any developer was found to be moderating someone unnecessarily, that developer themself would be moved to the moderated list by devrel for a time period without any access rights to change anything further themselves. Repeat offenders would be reviewed by devrel for further action if needed. this list would be required for all developers. I'd prefer short-term banning to moderating. Once an individual is moderated, who is expected to review their mails? Who is reviewing the reviews? Is devrel really prepared, in resources and spirit, to evaluate every email sent by a moderated individual? If you feel you are, then you have my support. I dont think for a moment that it is only non-devs causing this excessive amount of email which often results in flaming/trolling. I do agree that everyone should be bound by the same rules. Agreed. Thoughts? -- dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed gentoo org it could suck an ancient virus from the sea 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: New developer: Pierre-Yves Rofes (p-y)
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: handball Yay! Handball for the win! V-Li -- http://www.gentoo.org/ http://www.faulhammer.org/ http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] qmail.eclass draft
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:02:00 +0200 Michael Hanselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:04:27PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote: qmail-ldap will not be removed for sure, since i maintain it currently. Okay, my status there was outdated. We were at least discussing it at some point in history. And as the netqmail ebuild maintainer, I want the ebuild to be as simple as possible, that is, no external dependencies where possible. so, you suggest it is a better way to duplicate tons of code in 4 ebuilds? I'll think about it. [...] On a sidenote, qmail has a huge amount of open bugs, and has generally gotten no love in the past time, so i wonder if it actually was/is maintained. qmail != netqmail. To my knowledge, we have only one outstanding bug there, the one with man pages colliding, nothing critical. Since I also have other things in life with higher priorities than Gentoo, it has to wait. However, I should get to it during the week or at latest two weeks. As it seems, you do not have the time and/or interest to cleanup the qmail mess, but don't want anyone to touch (net)qmail ebuilds either, i have put the updated ebuilds for qmail and friends into my overlay. [1] Maybe we can get them into the tree some time in the future. Bene [1] http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/hollow/2007/07/15/experimental_qmail_ebuilds -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
Dnia 14-07-2007, sob o godzinie 14:03 -0700, Christina Fullam napisał(a): [ .. ] -core stays private. I really dont see the need to change IMO. -project (call it what you will) would be for the off topic, non development emails that we so commonly see. this list would be optional for all developers. -dev (no preference for the name) would be for development discussion for devs and non-devs alike. everyone would all start out on a whitelist. any developer could opt to move a dev or non-dev to the moderated list (meaning their emails would be delayed allowing for moderation or simple release after a given time period). The check and balance for this would be that if any developer was found to be moderating someone unnecessarily, that developer themself would be moved to the moderated list by devrel for a time period without any access rights to change anything further themselves. Repeat offenders would be reviewed by devrel for further action if needed. this list would be required for all developers. I agree w/ that. I dont think for a moment that it is only non-devs causing this excessive amount of email which often results in flaming/trolling. I do agree that everyone should be bound by the same rules. Thoughts? -- Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author -- ,-. | Dawid Węgliński | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cla @ irc.freenode.net | | GPG: 295E72D9 | `-' signature.asc Description: To jest część listu podpisana cyfrowo
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
Mike Doty wrote: All- We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. I'm not keen on this idea. I like the traditional unmoderated mailing list scheme used in open source projects everywhere, including this one at present. The Gentoo development community is much more closed than the development communities of most other open source projects (for good reasons), and I wouldn't like to see it close up further. Moderation would be used to exclude certain discussion, but the real solution for that is just to teach people to ignore the idiots. (yep, not easy in some cases!) I'm also not sure that the proposal solves any problems -- I glanced over the last few weeks of mail and didn't see any that I would reject from a moderation queue. I do like the gentoo-politics idea that came up a few weeks ago, which was to move politics off gentoo-dev and to another list, but I'd view it from another perspective (and avoid the words 'politics'): make gentoo-dev for development topics only, and have another list for the rest. But, I suspect we'd come back to the same problem on both lists, where some people are too keen to talk and deviate too far away from technical discussion. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
