Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On 06/17/2010 11:29 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: Petteri, On 06/17/10 17:45, Petteri Räty wrote: We communicate in English but that doesn't mean we all the same cultural background. My native language doesn't do small talk and doesn't have a word for please. Of course when writing English I try use please when required by the other party but sugar coating wouldn't have changed what I wanted to communicate with my message. the point of this thread is not the introduction of sugar coating (pretending to be nice in my words) as you call it. To me it's about turning Gentoo into a friendly and helpful community. (So it's actually not just about tone but the things coming before the tone, too.) On 06/17/10 09:52, Petteri Räty wrote: Wrong mailing list. This thread belongs to gentoo-project. that's what I am referring to with tone in Gentoo. I want the other 80% of you on the council. How would you have liked this to be written then? It would just increase the time needed to write the message and raise the risk of getting misunderstood. A short and to the point message is the easiest to understand. Yes, being friendly may take more words. Isn't it in your own best interest to have the other side not get pissed? Isn't that worth a few more words? I don't see anything unfriendly in my first reply. This thread doesn't have anything technical and as just doesn't belong to gentoo-dev. As DevRel lead I think it's my duty to remind developers how our mailing lists are meant to be used. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On 17.6.2010 2.00, Sebastian Pipping wrote: I would like to propose these fundamental changes to DevRel: Wrong mailing list. This thread belongs to gentoo-project. I also find it weird that you didn't consult the devrel alias before starting this thread but I have no objections to having discussions about how devrel works. Let's have any further discussion on the proper mailing list (I set Reply-To with the hopes of moving it there). Regards, Petteri
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues with devrel are taken to). Excellent point. Furthermore, in every Democratic foundation in this planet the authority entity is completely detached to the disciplinary one
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
Jorge, On 06/17/10 02:33, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: 1) Make the list of subscribers to the devrel alias public I don't know what gave you the idea that the list of the Developer Relations project members is private. You can check the alias members directly by running grep devrel /var/mail/master.aliases on woodpecker and you can check the project members at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/ I see. I didn't know about /var/mail/master.aliases. I assumed that I would have found it with something like find /var/mail/alias/ | grep devrel if it were public and thefore assumed it to be private. Sorry. [..] in my opinion choosing conflict resolution members by popularity is a very bad idea. In my understanding people voting on candidates for a conflict resolution team vote for them with faith they will do a good job on that position later. How come you expect that to be driven by popularity? Best, Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
Petteri, On 06/17/10 09:52, Petteri Räty wrote: Wrong mailing list. This thread belongs to gentoo-project. that's what I am referring to with tone in Gentoo. I want the other 80% of you on the council. In my opinion the DevRel topic is too important to hide it on a mailing list with a fraction of subscribers. I wrote here on purpose. Among the very first things a Gentoo dev learns is that the gentoo-project mailing list is a list for topics no one really cares about. If you ask me we should resolve that list and merge it into gentoo-dev. It's note a pure approach, but it could work better. I also find it weird that you didn't consult the devrel alias before starting this thread In my eyes these issues are something that the whole Gentoo project needs to know about and to decide upon, not DevRel itself. Especially discussing to replace the team of conflict resolvers with a group of elected people isn't something I expect to work well on an inner discussion with DevRel. My latest discussion with DevRel (and it's ending) may have added to it. Best, Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On 17.6.2010 17.00, Sebastian Pipping wrote: Petteri, On 06/17/10 09:52, Petteri Räty wrote: Wrong mailing list. This thread belongs to gentoo-project. that's what I am referring to with tone in Gentoo. I want the other 80% of you on the council. We communicate in English but that doesn't mean we all the same cultural background. My native language doesn't do small talk and doesn't have a word for please. Of course when writing English I try use please when required by the other party but sugar coating wouldn't have changed what I wanted to communicate with my message. It would just increase the time needed to write the message and raise the risk of getting misunderstood. A short and to the point message is the easiest to understand. In my opinion the DevRel topic is too important to hide it on a mailing list with a fraction of subscribers. I wrote here on purpose. If a thing is important enough then you should use gentoo-dev-announce under the current rules. Regards, Petteri
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On 17 June 2010 17:45, Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: We communicate in English but that doesn't mean we all the same cultural background. My native language doesn't do small talk and doesn't have a word for please. I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. Unless Finnish is not your native language. One of my Finnish friends (we've since lost touch) was one of the most chatty persons I've ever known. He may have been uncharacteristic for a Finn, but even so. Ole hyvä, don't blame it on your language. A short and to the point message is the easiest to understand. I like short and to the point too. But we run the risk of being misunderstood nonetheless. In my opinion the DevRel topic is too important to hide it on a mailing list with a fraction of subscribers. I wrote here on purpose. If a thing is important enough then you should use gentoo-dev-announce under the current rules. That's not a list meant for discussion. I think Sebastian made the right call here. Cheers, Ben
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
Let me cut out one or two pieces I consider very important: We communicate in English but that doesn't mean we all the same cultural background. My native language doesn't do small talk and doesn't have a word for please. Now of course this will cause friction. I've noticed it especially with germanic and slavic languages that are more terse than english. For example Sit down! is acceptable in all situations in german, but is slightly rude in english and brutally rude in french. There you'd say Would you please sit down? in most social situations, unless you want to anger someone. (German carries most of the difference in the inflection and doesn't need multiple phrases to express the same thing) You can extrapolate the friction this can and will cause. So unless someone actively personally insults me I'll just assume it got lost in translation. And there's little we can do about it because many people don't notice these translation issues or don't know english well enough to express themselves with the needed refinement. A short and to the point message is the easiest to understand. ... and the easiest to misunderstand. Either way we lose ;) Personally I think the tone has improved a lot over the last $timeunit, I also have my personal theory how that happened, but I don't want to be burnt as a heretic. So let's not get too hung up on single words, stop floodmailing and resume fixing bugs, mmmhkay? All the best, Patrick
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On 17.6.2010 18.20, Ben de Groot wrote: On 17 June 2010 17:45, Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: We communicate in English but that doesn't mean we all the same cultural background. My native language doesn't do small talk and doesn't have a word for please. I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. Unless Finnish is not your native language. One of my Finnish friends (we've since lost touch) was one of the most chatty persons I've ever known. He may have been uncharacteristic for a Finn, but even so. Ole hyvä, don't blame it on your language. Ole hyvä is not something you would use when ordering a beer: English: A beer, please. Finnish: Yksi olut. I didn't say Finns are not chatty. Among friends Finns can be very chatty. Do you consider Finnish communication the same as in US? That's not a list meant for discussion. I think Sebastian made the right call here. Under current rules you cross post with gentoo-dev-announce to gentoo-project and set Reply-To to gentoo-project. That is what I have been teaching all new recruits and will continue to do so until we change the rules (I am not against changing the rules if most people feel gentoo-project is not useful any more). Regards, Petteri
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On 2010.06.17 01:00, Sebastian Pipping wrote: Hello! [snip] Problem: Both betelgeuse and jmbsvicetto are DevRel members nominated for the upcoming council election. As I am also nominated proposing such rule could be understood aiming at decreasing their chances on the council and increasing mine as a result. However, as I propose to start over with a developer voted conflict resolution team this is not the case. The only implication is that if they make it to the council they cannot be elected for the conflict resolution team. DevRel is one of the most important things in Gentoo - we dependend on that working well. If you care about this please make yourself heard. Thanks, Sebastian Sebastian, You are suggesting that devrel/council members don't know of the conflict of interests beforehand and/or that they fail to disqualify themselves from an active part in either the devrel or council part of the proceedings. I admit that the possibility exists under present rules. Enforced division of responsibility can be a good thing in places but I'm not convinced that this is one of those places. That said, I would not want devrel to become a subset of council, nor council to become a subset of devrel. Its just for that reason that the Foundation bylaws forbid any individual serving as a trustee and on council at the same time. Maybe I am coming round to supporting your view after all. -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On 2010.06.17 01:00, Sebastian Pipping wrote: Hello! [snip] 3) Let Gentoo developers vote on who's in the conflict resolution team just like we do with the council. [snip] Thanks, Sebastian I'm against this idea - conflict resolution, I prefer the term mediation, is not something that the typical Gentoo developer is very good at. For sure, they have been involved in conflicts themselves but rarely, if ever, as a mediator. I think very few developers would stand for the role - its hard work ask any parent who has mediated between their offspring. I would prefer mediation to draw from a pool of volunteers, probably vetted by some trusted group and assigned to issues after their neutrality in any particular case had been determined by some method involving the protagonists. Elected mediators may well turn out to be unsuitable for the role. For myself, I would not stand for election to this role but I might volunteer to help out from time to time. -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
Patrick, On 06/17/10 18:21, Patrick Lauer wrote: Now of course this will cause friction. I've noticed it especially with germanic and slavic languages that are more terse than english. For example Sit down! is acceptable in all situations in german, maybe acceptable, sure not polite or friendly. You can extrapolate the friction this can and will cause. So unless someone actively personally insults me I'll just assume it got lost in translation. I understand extrapolating friction as having the receiver fixing potential miscommunication. Is that what you meant? While it may work for you it's an inversion of responsibility again to me. I want Gentoo to be attractive to users without that skill, too. And there's little we can do about it because many people don't notice these translation issues or don't know english well enough to express themselves with the needed refinement. Things we can do include raising awareness and keep trying. So let's not get too hung up on single words, stop floodmailing and resume fixing bugs, mmmhkay? Are you asking me to shut up? In case floodmailing refers to me: I'm not done yet. We have more or less ignored non-technical issues for quite some time concentrating on technical issues as that's easier. The thing is: Technical things work much better in Gentoo than non-technical things. Let me repeat: Technical is not our main problem. Best, Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
Petteri, On 06/17/10 17:45, Petteri Räty wrote: We communicate in English but that doesn't mean we all the same cultural background. My native language doesn't do small talk and doesn't have a word for please. Of course when writing English I try use please when required by the other party but sugar coating wouldn't have changed what I wanted to communicate with my message. the point of this thread is not the introduction of sugar coating (pretending to be nice in my words) as you call it. To me it's about turning Gentoo into a friendly and helpful community. (So it's actually not just about tone but the things coming before the tone, too.) It would just increase the time needed to write the message and raise the risk of getting misunderstood. A short and to the point message is the easiest to understand. Yes, being friendly may take more words. Isn't it in your own best interest to have the other side not get pissed? Isn't that worth a few more words? Best, Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On 06/17/10 22:09, Sebastian Pipping wrote: Patrick, On 06/17/10 18:21, Patrick Lauer wrote: Now of course this will cause friction. I've noticed it especially with germanic and slavic languages that are more terse than english. For example Sit down! is acceptable in all situations in german, maybe acceptable, sure not polite or friendly. Hey, komm, setz dich. Ey, du Arsch, setz dich, sonst schmeiss ich dich raus! exactly the same words, just defined by the context - and if you leave that away it's only intonation. The english or french equivalent ends up as different sentences ... You can extrapolate the friction this can and will cause. So unless someone actively personally insults me I'll just assume it got lost in translation. I understand extrapolating friction as having the receiver fixing potential miscommunication. Is that what you meant? I meant to say you can easily guess how much trouble that causes And here we see how difficult languages can be as you managed to get something quite different out of it ... [snip] So let's not get too hung up on single words, stop floodmailing and resume fixing bugs, mmmhkay? Are you asking me to shut up? In case floodmailing refers to me: I'm not done yet. You're one of the more persistent persons on the mailing lists. I don't see the point of arguing the same thing for days with no end in sight ... for me, personally, there are better ways to use my time. For example reading the quizzes my recruits are working on and pointing out the problems they still have. Or bugwrangling a bit just for fun. We have more or less ignored non-technical issues for quite some time concentrating on technical issues as that's easier. The thing is: Technical things work much better in Gentoo than non-technical things. Let me repeat: Technical is not our main problem. Ok then. What's the possible solutions? Which options do we have, what are their advantages and disadvantages? Why didn't we apply that solution before? Just complaining that things suck and life isn't fair won't help. Finding a goal and working towards it until you are done will. Have fun, Patrick
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On 06/17/10 16:37, Sebastian Pipping wrote: I don't know what gave you the idea that the list of the Developer Relations project members is private. Also, Willinks reports the alias to be empty, unlike with other aliases: [00:44] sping expn devrel [00:44] willikins devrel = A question of rbu just made me remember ... Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/17/10 16:37, Sebastian Pipping wrote: I don't know what gave you the idea that the list of the Developer Relations project members is private. Also, Willinks reports the alias to be empty, unlike with other aliases: [00:44] sping expn devrel [00:44] willikins devrel = A question of rbu just made me remember ... This is an implementation detail of willikins (it only has access to a subset of aliases.) Note that the very existence of that command is based on a random comment I made about similar functionality I saw somewhere else. I don't think it was ever meant to be exhaustive, merely useful. I pointed out the /var/mail 'security problem' to robin sometime last year and IIRC he responded that he was aware of the master.aliases file and was fine with it being readable. Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On 06/16/2010 08:33 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: On 17-06-2010 00:00, Sebastian Pipping wrote: 3) Let Gentoo developers vote on who's in the conflict resolution team just like we do with the council. AFAIK this never happened before and in my opinion choosing conflict resolution members by popularity is a very bad idea. Well, as long as the council remains the board of appeals and it is elected, I don't have a problem. I'd also go a step further and say that devrel members serve at the pleasure of the council. Some might debate that. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:47:34 +0100 Roy Bamford neddyseag...@gentoo.org wrote: I'm against this idea - conflict resolution, I prefer the term mediation, is not something that the typical Gentoo developer is very good at. For sure, they have been involved in conflicts themselves but rarely, if ever, as a mediator. I think very few developers would stand for the role - its hard work ask any parent who has mediated between their offspring. I would prefer mediation to draw from a pool of volunteers, probably vetted by some trusted group and assigned to issues after their neutrality in any particular case had been determined by some method involving the protagonists. Elected mediators may well turn out to be unsuitable for the role. The problem I see is that electing a pool of people to look into this means opening the proverbial cans of worms to a wider public that we have so far hidden away and resolved quietly. I would think that where devrel fails, if and when and so on, the higher authority to appeal to (the council) is already in place. But then you could join devrel as a volunteer, I gather. I wonder if that's what I should start doing now. jer
[gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
Hello! yngwin's devaway message still reads inactive, pending resolution of devrel issue. yngwin retired. I woudn't go as far as saying that his case made him retire but I definitely say that _DevRel failed on his case_. I believe I had enough insight to be able to say. I would like to propose these fundamental changes to DevRel: 1) Make the list of subscribers to the devrel alias public Idea: If you share private information you have a right to know with whom you share. 2) Clearly split DevRel into groups for recruiting and conflict resolution with distinct aliases. 3) Let Gentoo developers vote on who's in the conflict resolution team just like we do with the council. 4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues with devrel are taken to). Idea: From insight on cases of DevRel versus members of RevRel I can tell this dossn't work well. I suppose that Council against Council-DevRel doesn't work better. Problem: Both betelgeuse and jmbsvicetto are DevRel members nominated for the upcoming council election. As I am also nominated proposing such rule could be understood aiming at decreasing their chances on the council and increasing mine as a result. However, as I propose to start over with a developer voted conflict resolution team this is not the case. The only implication is that if they make it to the council they cannot be elected for the conflict resolution team. DevRel is one of the most important things in Gentoo - we dependend on that working well. If you care about this please make yourself heard. Thanks, Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 17-06-2010 00:00, Sebastian Pipping wrote: Hello! yngwin's devaway message still reads inactive, pending resolution of devrel issue. yngwin retired. I woudn't go as far as saying that his case made him retire but I definitely say that _DevRel failed on his case_. I believe I had enough insight to be able to say. Sebastian, not being in the Developer Relations team means you don't have a complete picture about what happened. I would like to propose these fundamental changes to DevRel: 1) Make the list of subscribers to the devrel alias public Idea: If you share private information you have a right to know with whom you share. I don't know what gave you the idea that the list of the Developer Relations project members is private. You can check the alias members directly by running grep devrel /var/mail/master.aliases on woodpecker and you can check the project members at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/ 2) Clearly split DevRel into groups for recruiting and conflict resolution with distinct aliases. There are subgroups in the DevRel team, including recruiters and undertakers, and there are specific aliases for those - recruiters and retirement. The conflict resolution is handled through the devrel alias as the Ombudsman project was dissolved 1 or 2 years ago. You can check the membership to the subgroups in the DevRel page. 3) Let Gentoo developers vote on who's in the conflict resolution team just like we do with the council. AFAIK this never happened before and in my opinion choosing conflict resolution members by popularity is a very bad idea. 4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues with devrel are taken to). The reason the elections page clearly identifies members of devrel is to alert developers to possible conflicts. To clarify your above statement, I read it as being about the fact that disciplinary actions of DevRel can be appealed to the Council. If it were meant globally, I'd have to note that whenever you cannot reach an agreement with any project or their lead, you'll have to appeal to the council. Idea: From insight on cases of DevRel versus members of RevRel I can tell this dossn't work well. I suppose that Council against Council-DevRel doesn't work better. Problem: Both betelgeuse and jmbsvicetto are DevRel members nominated for the upcoming council election. As I am also nominated proposing such rule could be understood aiming at decreasing their chances on the council and increasing mine as a result. However, as I propose to start over with a developer voted conflict resolution team this is not the case. The only implication is that if they make it to the council they cannot be elected for the conflict resolution team. My response to your email has nothing to do with the above and to make it crystal clear, this is my personal opinion and doesn't represent the global view of the DevRel team or any other team I am a member of. DevRel is one of the most important things in Gentoo - we dependend on that working well. If you care about this please make yourself heard. Thanks, Sebastian - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMGW1pAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEP4bAQAL1da+zyT//dvMdmv4cxaTth DzU5R0/NYOFnqlRKSUuRoSu63mPyL9XshAUZsdzY71qhYYtCzdhbqbIDNV84C5fm vdOTmV0dQyEbqvV0jI6rrsevyvuQ0g40IjuMFH8kkXmpD982OFAb22l3BZWE5Evh sk+LYnRWuzXLsptsJj2gumvsf7MrjdpwYmU65W6kJutKYovB9otrqwea75yGObnA /21TmNOm8UAYIFHndxu7iC93yy2obMxbPy/XLuKAavsr5kU/kyJGIsRq8oWnrBwN pX2lmyDIPdSM41k+HZtM0Rs4kCYW1WgMT8Ntq6I4dvHdL1WlHiIGrDWal1hGhHhM smh1Exrjk8FJ4hjjD6O99VSa1JY7AVurGbPHOOaQxAIhb/tKqrdaQxG9bypTQhqD uV2QmeSilv0cSxyTtUxmISIb3z2+Xez+lD/ZPmmPnmhaEhieudR7X/K3lXQVk1GF lBY11QjNmJ4zubIyty2edHDuxT0wvNFdDNH9gv6nxmPEZmjn6ApNfB3/lu+QWkQM 4WHINu+eXGyAzkLKxcpOgNOFw5IJyHsz3OBhs8y7YXSWNbZrIrkbnW7zrx0hkGOV kv1L25u6rVCdvLZvRvYMRnhh+AkxLdIfqDcc7H5cQDvRveWVLM5yRf2071XiZjWE c5S8QMNGCcAVo/60fL5S =1QFB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: 4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues with devrel are taken to). i have yet to see this being necessary. the one or two times there was a conflict of interest, there was a minor discussion ahead of time and cleanly resolved. i.e. it isnt a problem -mike
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:00:21 +0200, Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org wrote: yngwin's devaway message still reads inactive, pending resolution of devrel issue. yngwin retired. I woudn't go as far as saying that his case made him retire but I definitely say that _DevRel failed on his case_. I believe I had enough insight to be able to say. How do you have enough insight to know this stuff? Was it public? I consider myself pretty active in the community and don't know a thing about yngwin's case. It is all pretty vague to me. /me shrugs. I would like to propose these fundamental changes to DevRel: snip I can't comment on the rest due to the above. -Jeremy
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel
On 17 June 2010 02:33, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote: On 17-06-2010 00:00, Sebastian Pipping wrote: yngwin's devaway message still reads inactive, pending resolution of devrel issue. yngwin retired. I woudn't go as far as saying that his case made him retire but I definitely say that _DevRel failed on his case_. I believe I had enough insight to be able to say. Sebastian, not being in the Developer Relations team means you don't have a complete picture about what happened. I've been in contact with Sebastian since the beginning of my conflict with Calchan, and kept him in the loop. Apart from anything that might have taken place behind the closed doors of DevRel that I myself don't know about either, he has a good picture of what happened. 4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues with devrel are taken to). The reason the elections page clearly identifies members of devrel is to alert developers to possible conflicts. To clarify your above statement, I read it as being about the fact that disciplinary actions of DevRel can be appealed to the Council. If it were meant globally, I'd have to note that whenever you cannot reach an agreement with any project or their lead, you'll have to appeal to the council. I indicated to Sebastian that if DevRel's verdict in my case would turn out to be negative, that I am not inclined to appeal to Council. As two of the most influential DevRel members happen to also be two of the most influential Council members, I would not expect a different outcome. I think there is a conflict of interest here, and I agree with Sebastian that it would be better if that were avoided. Cheers, Ben
