Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On 06/17/2011 09:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday, June 17, 2011 14:34:35 Samuli Suominen wrote: I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere? i gathered that he had a specific case where he found a removal entry in the ChangeLog kept people from chasing their own tail for a while -mike well i read the post twice now and trying to put some logic behind it, but it doesnt have any damn my binary logic :)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 17/06/2011 03:30 πμ, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday, June 13, 2011 19:09:06 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: On 11-06-2011 20:48, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still I think that this is not a sane situation. it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus cement an echo chamber Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing with the Council? how is disagreeing with a Council decision valid grounds either ? punting people because they disagree with any group isn't really valid. It was not about disagreeing with Council but actively going against an approved policy when the team is responsible for enforcing policies in the tree. This is why in my proposal for the review of GLEP 48 I added a point stating that acting against established policies would constitute ground to be removed from the team. that isnt what Ciaran said, and what you describe no one has shown me doing. thus the only logical conclusions that one can draw from this: - Diego mistakenly removed me without knowing all the facts or - i was removed for purely voicing disagreement -mike This is exactly what I've trying to explain in many many e-mails. You and Samuli agreed to follow the policy. Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy. I am not sure why this is so hard for someone to understand the difference. This is reason why I left as well. Because you were removed with no proof of policy violation. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJN+xbjAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCDBcQAJNSH6E4eiB4GFt7nSWkT1Ou u9XbcaANAOBHNgt0Ydg/QJF2w0ON8vo/hk8y2gvxOOKXlukT21teDAQ4A7BTiRHa zz7m51TXyTXAjBUavam6x9KKgdTTnlHkRpVMCxh6HHG1K8n7qHFrswMxr41V8cD6 oZ4sP0UZPXKA7qslDv44MGF7gPQyUcCCKAYVOBOCWtNOr9LABxfSQnX/s6ZtSEHy uvQ8FD4cL/BYN83NnoB+fUUqzFwiyz1xlZDD3QrvhlsYNi3QSM+Zp6t2X08eWci5 ScSLUqB5kAZVZH9SzxNjpGeZu95A5hr0w6goCd6dxUqdUne/2k99HwPp876PRiq1 jvcRMEHvvKQdVN8Tdqs8fiSxVZBcBlG4N9ief6FyAKrNgcJ8aaLAPb9CeuqWcGnE mmWrtql5QJR3n5AENNOWUzG41RfBRf6QqoF9WYLDuIEwXOfcE2mpWmtL473fXtUK 8PsLSZ9ZXYVDhGxAAai1ZFCgTjbzCv635V0nXpZm2w6PBsDpuKRXtjUJCRbhoXVP lFBrDLDOyI/qFf7PfYQfi3nwUucmZIJTm3g+hSt1nuE9nvx2qjdx9FzN79DqattC RfiZQJFxXc9baa1qz0yt1TZHmmbFmUuX/moIxSSk0XbzYhEl5uJUuJeh/b8MGjeT 18nIZ+fNSEaHwyc/IHSk =0nlz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy. And this is why nobody likes lawyers. :) Leaving around old packages because of a desire to avoid a policy doesn't really strike me as an example of exemplary QA either. There are lots of good reasons to keep a few versions of a package in-tree. None of them should be used merely as excuses to avoid running the echangelog command. I could see foot-dragging over a policy that requires refactoring many ebuilds or something, but the Council tends to avoid things like this precisely because they are onerous. Personally I tend to just run echangelog for everything anyway - it is easier to changelog a trivial change than to spend half a week on -dev debating anybody who questions whether it is trivial. Besides, I spend much of my career working on systems that won't commit anything without a documented reason for change - the changelogs on these systems typically grow to fill 75% of the entire databases. Gentoo is like a breath of fresh air... The one thing I hope doesn't come out of this is a Council that is even more reluctant to act out of fear of being slapped around by the community anytime a developer threatens to quit. Sure, we can't really afford to lose people, but we can even less afford a system where any one person can just hold the entire endeavor hostage. If we think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see how the git migration goes. Sometimes individual devs just need to see which way the wind is blowing and do their part to make sure we at least end up anywhere other than going in circles... Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 17/06/2011 05:25 ??, Rich Freeman wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy. And this is why nobody likes lawyers. :) Rich, That's a bit controversial. Do not expect developers to use common sense when you frame them with policies that you (not you in particular) established just because you think that they don't have common sense. See the irony? :) - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJN+2n6AAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCdigP/2lUqGrTRsMKSnVzXfrgPVP0 fq+n3iTlHkYo6dPHHE8qCp0XeALTwelM/aBV3EHmtfMhxLDrcL1TZXpLPZ1CcAtY /1p5mkkC6BIbpxwhBkKmTVeqPY8sTTkFMWJItrcwL48U47inBEK9+Lk1rZ6ZWJgh km5b9R8NpB9zY5a28HGl+zrIX+W5LFcQZ9DlIZ8+b/wBn6IbTLSN25mmL7HeaDvL GrSv++1PJGAAp0wBo9RwhrgxfGIi+emDZFxMsLoxDmpZLLpZ3FOK/7q1jYXmUJ+O F3mwMa1U71SG5IKYUVPP9lNgWqdM7bneuGcCtvEva3mx7js5GoAdznjm2CQrA5PS RgV3ZgpV6q8IdmOO7/RfA/i5WNQNdK+0gk09o6uElKn1hCV2cW8lcC2yQe8sHyka 02x5JSaTijl39cjhqCysNZfuuzM6RzYsNOxwg56OCyl2ZDS3WgyoPInWlrLr1bpF LMNMeD486o/uD4pvkYp40vkbdy2VInasV7+Tpfj5AmNrXqnUNFumHP6t41QsIB90 vtRY7G3nSM1nQxfaw8CPrFDiWaKkZ/adScQg6G3W9P3Bi45ddTWtaEh2YseJZm0w C8V+86j0t+LyFkjiHpORkusZgVoNrWW8Z2gSBAvB4IQDJZmyWA/vGPbVvX+CDc5L bo3sP9fYm2YLwGhj7BOL =6aj1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:25:42 -0700 as excerpted: On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy. And this is why nobody likes lawyers. :) Leaving around old packages because of a desire to avoid a policy doesn't really strike me as an example of exemplary QA either. There are lots of good reasons to keep a few versions of a package in-tree. None of them should be used merely as excuses to avoid running the echangelog command. Reading a changelog (yes, READING A CHANGELOG!! people actually DO use them, and occasionally depend on entries when versions are removed, but that's covered territory) at my last update yesterday, something occurred to me... The particular entry in question listed some trivial change in maintained ebuilds, then said Remove old. There was accordingly a list of a bunch of removed versions, along with the versions modified by the update. What occurred to me in the context of this whole controversy, was that not only can devs simply leave old versions for someone else to remove, but they can, and routinely do, remove old versions as part of a commit changing something in (some of) the remaining ones, as well. It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little if they simply avoided separate removals. In fact, in borderline cases where a trivial change may not have made it on its own, as it waited for a bigger change to come along to be worth doing, the removals combined with the trivial change may now trigger the trivial change commit earlier than it would have occurred otherwise. So depending on the individual package and how often minor changes as opposed to version removals are necessary, it's entirely possible that deliberately abstaining from removal-only commits won't visibly change the workflow AT ALL, or that if it does, it's in favor of getting those minor changes in faster than they'd otherwise appear. [Deleted a bunch I 100% agree with.] The one thing I hope doesn't come out of this is a Council that is even more reluctant to act out of fear of being slapped around by the community anytime a developer threatens to quit. That was worth repeating. ++ If we think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see how the git migration goes. True but scary. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió: If we think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see how the git migration goes. Just a few words regarding this, in my company we moved to git (from darcs) recently. I have ended up taking some non working days because the pressure made by the devs was very high. So Council guys expect the same from Gentoo devs when you move (and I'm in no way not supporting the move, in fact I'd like to see it done). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote: What occurred to me in the context of this whole controversy, was that not only can devs simply leave old versions for someone else to remove, but they can, and routinely do, remove old versions as part of a commit changing something in (some of) the remaining ones, as well. yes, which is why i find it a bit ironic when people claim that this information is useful while at the same basically generating garbage themselves. It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little if they simply avoided separate removals. In fact, in borderline cases where a trivial change may not have made it on its own, as it waited for a bigger change to come along to be worth doing, the removals combined with the trivial change may now trigger the trivial change commit earlier than it would have occurred otherwise. if you look at my commit behavior, this is exactly the sort of thing i avoid. my cvs commits are pretty logically clean to the point where importing into git would result in nice behavior. which means i make one commit to remove, one commit to fix a specific bug, one commit to version bump, etc... -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote: El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió: If we think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see how the git migration goes. Just a few words regarding this, in my company we moved to git (from darcs) recently. I have ended up taking some non working days because the pressure made by the devs was very high. So Council guys expect the same from Gentoo devs when you move (and I'm in no way not supporting the move, in fact I'd like to see it done). when i made the conversion at my job, i made myself available for random/trivial questions and explaining of concepts. it seemed to make things much smoother for them. certainly dont have a problem doing the same for Gentoo. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:44:52 -0400 as excerpted: On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote: It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little if they simply avoided separate removals. In fact, in borderline cases where a trivial change may not have made it on its own, as it waited for a bigger change to come along to be worth doing, the removals combined with the trivial change may now trigger the trivial change commit earlier than it would have occurred otherwise. if you look at my commit behavior, this is exactly the sort of thing i avoid. my cvs commits are pretty logically clean to the point where importing into git would result in nice behavior. which means i make one commit to remove, one commit to fix a specific bug, one commit to version bump, etc... Good point and exactly the behavior best on git as it makes for far easier and more effective git bisects when necessary. Unfortunately (for oh so many reasons!!), Gentoo's main tree and workflow isn't git-ified yet. But I can certainly commend someone whose personal standards demand that same one-thing-and-one-thing-only commit separation, modern dVCS or not. Meanwhile, case-in-point of why changelogging removals matters. My last post was to a kde list, helping someone trying to build kdelibs on RHEL. He was missing the libdbusmenu-qt dependency, which I was able to point out, and I went on to describe the version info. Gentoo's kdelibs-4.6.4 dependency for that library is = libdbusmenu-qt-0.3.2, but I have 0.8.2 installed. Because the information was in the changelog, I was able to tell him that my current 0.8.2 was introduced in April, the other available version on gentoo, 0.6.2, was introduced in Sept. 2010, there was a version jump (at least on gentoo) between 0.3.5 (from June, 2010) and 0.6.2, and the 0.3.2 that's gentoo's minimum requirement was introduced on Gentoo in April 2010 and removed in Sept, 2010. So even 0.3.2 isn't much more than a year old (on RHEL 5 it's likely an upgrade!), but was already considered old enough to remove ~6 months later. That information on 0.3.2 removal wouldn't have been available to me (at least not without making a huge project of it, checking Gentoo's viewCVS logs on the web) had someone not put it in the changelog. Users DO find that information useful and there have been quite a number of times I personally have found it useful in helping people not necessarily on gentoo (tho I believe I've spotted hugely outdated based on changelogs versions of packages on gentoo-users systems, too), but in other parts of the FLOSS community. Having that information not available locally on my system, either by changelog as now, or by git whatchanged, if users finally get access to direct git-pull once the main tree is git-upgraded, would be a serious regression. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On 06/17/2011 09:18 PM, Duncan wrote: Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:44:52 -0400 as excerpted: On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote: It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little if they simply avoided separate removals. In fact, in borderline cases where a trivial change may not have made it on its own, as it waited for a bigger change to come along to be worth doing, the removals combined with the trivial change may now trigger the trivial change commit earlier than it would have occurred otherwise. if you look at my commit behavior, this is exactly the sort of thing i avoid. my cvs commits are pretty logically clean to the point where importing into git would result in nice behavior. which means i make one commit to remove, one commit to fix a specific bug, one commit to version bump, etc... Good point and exactly the behavior best on git as it makes for far easier and more effective git bisects when necessary. Unfortunately (for oh so many reasons!!), Gentoo's main tree and workflow isn't git-ified yet. But I can certainly commend someone whose personal standards demand that same one-thing-and-one-thing-only commit separation, modern dVCS or not. Meanwhile, case-in-point of why changelogging removals matters. My last post was to a kde list, helping someone trying to build kdelibs on RHEL. He was missing the libdbusmenu-qt dependency, which I was able to point out, and I went on to describe the version info. Gentoo's kdelibs-4.6.4 dependency for that library is = libdbusmenu-qt-0.3.2, but I have 0.8.2 installed. Because the information was in the changelog, I was able to tell him that my current 0.8.2 was introduced in April, the other available version on gentoo, 0.6.2, was introduced in Sept. 2010, there was a version jump (at least on gentoo) between 0.3.5 (from June, 2010) and 0.6.2, and the 0.3.2 that's gentoo's minimum requirement was introduced on Gentoo in April 2010 and removed in Sept, 2010. So even 0.3.2 isn't much more than a year old (on RHEL 5 it's likely an upgrade!), but was already considered old enough to remove ~6 months later. That information on 0.3.2 removal wouldn't have been available to me (at least not without making a huge project of it, checking Gentoo's viewCVS logs on the web) had someone not put it in the changelog. Users DO find that information useful and there have been quite a number of times I personally have found it useful in helping people not necessarily on gentoo (tho I believe I've spotted hugely outdated based on changelogs versions of packages on gentoo-users systems, too), but in other parts of the FLOSS community. Having that information not available locally on my system, either by changelog as now, or by git whatchanged, if users finally get access to direct git-pull once the main tree is git-upgraded, would be a serious regression. I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Friday, June 17, 2011 14:34:35 Samuli Suominen wrote: I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere? i gathered that he had a specific case where he found a removal entry in the ChangeLog kept people from chasing their own tail for a while -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
Samuli Suominen posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:34:35 +0300 as excerpted: On 06/17/2011 09:18 PM, Duncan wrote: Meanwhile, case-in-point of why changelogging removals matters. My last post was to a kde list, helping someone trying to build kdelibs on RHEL. He was missing the libdbusmenu-qt dependency Because the information was in the changelog 0.3.2 isn't much more than a year old (on RHEL 5 it's likely an upgrade!), but was already considered old enough to remove ~6 months later. That information on 0.3.2 removal wouldn't have been available to me had someone not put it in the changelog. Having that information not available locally on my system, either by changelog as now, or by git whatchanged, if users finally get access to direct git-pull once the main tree is git-upgraded, would be a serious regression. I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere? Mike's correct. Not having package removal information in the changelog would be a serious regression, as the last paragraph states in summary of the previous, which is excerpted above. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
El 17/06/11 18:46, Mike Frysinger escribió: On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote: El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió: If we think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see how the git migration goes. Just a few words regarding this, in my company we moved to git (from darcs) recently. I have ended up taking some non working days because the pressure made by the devs was very high. So Council guys expect the same from Gentoo devs when you move (and I'm in no way not supporting the move, in fact I'd like to see it done). when i made the conversion at my job, i made myself available for random/trivial questions and explaining of concepts. it seemed to make things much smoother for them. Neither am I in fact I'm working in this ATM: http://dev.gentoo.org/~klondike/git.xml Yet when people doesn't want to change your availability serves little. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Friday, June 17, 2011 16:37:02 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote: El 17/06/11 18:46, Mike Frysinger escribió: On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote: El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió: If we think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see how the git migration goes. Just a few words regarding this, in my company we moved to git (from darcs) recently. I have ended up taking some non working days because the pressure made by the devs was very high. So Council guys expect the same from Gentoo devs when you move (and I'm in no way not supporting the move, in fact I'd like to see it done). when i made the conversion at my job, i made myself available for random/trivial questions and explaining of concepts. it seemed to make things much smoother for them. Neither am I in fact I'm working in this ATM: http://dev.gentoo.org/~klondike/git.xml thanks. this is what i wrote: http://docs.blackfin.uclinux.org/doku.php?id=version_control_systems#quick_references people found the cvs-svn-git rosetta stone useful -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Sunday, June 12, 2011 17:16:08 Francesco R wrote: 2011/6/11 Mike Frysinger: On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still I think that this is not a sane situation. it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus cement an echo chamber Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing with the Council? how is disagreeing with a Council decision valid grounds either ? punting people because they disagree with any group isn't really valid. If you are in the role of enforcing decision of the council and with disagreeing you mean acting versus their decision yes it's a very much valid ground. i never said acting against council decisions, and neither did Ciaran, and so far, no one has shown me doing such a thing -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Monday, June 13, 2011 19:09:06 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: On 11-06-2011 20:48, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still I think that this is not a sane situation. it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus cement an echo chamber Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing with the Council? how is disagreeing with a Council decision valid grounds either ? punting people because they disagree with any group isn't really valid. It was not about disagreeing with Council but actively going against an approved policy when the team is responsible for enforcing policies in the tree. This is why in my proposal for the review of GLEP 48 I added a point stating that acting against established policies would constitute ground to be removed from the team. that isnt what Ciaran said, and what you describe no one has shown me doing. thus the only logical conclusions that one can draw from this: - Diego mistakenly removed me without knowing all the facts or - i was removed for purely voicing disagreement -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11-06-2011 20:48, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still I think that this is not a sane situation. it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus cement an echo chamber Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing with the Council? how is disagreeing with a Council decision valid grounds either ? punting people because they disagree with any group isn't really valid. -mike It was not about disagreeing with Council but actively going against an approved policy when the team is responsible for enforcing policies in the tree. This is why in my proposal for the review of GLEP 48 I added a point stating that acting against established policies would constitute ground to be removed from the team. The point about the QA lead having to approve anyone wanting to join the team should be evaluated with the background that the council will surely pay attention to who the QA lead accepts or refuses in the team and that if he acts in an inappropriate manner he may be subject to a devrel bug. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN9piSAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPI8MP/3reALc0xY6JXhOQ1mIDiDjh tugb3K7DYxWn4o3g78CBc1EDjZG+WTnoNTvhBC3KnFvdR2jCyuTyoxTgrdiyMCBt Z92klv9fWYwn5IgjRXD3PthG//uen+fpWS5BAvL9PjjeqiR5WOGlfavqbutsAvmy 7zCerkrNgBIzUyvgDBTRMcnftNMwbXu/fOtkVp9m203KjZuvzge606OKBcjiKYbG uZ+Vw2pMfvJ0MycoRdI3a411/RuouISpRlWKoQR6QpFtgago9qf4Gx4MqY1qXaV9 2iY/fBAau1AmVy3IAqFDG1IvBM1QDr9C3wuGqX2nlLQF8V+3BazIputV3sqYhxwd scxJSzJlH+SMnO5+IkyR2Y7WaW9byIQb/pV/weIxfGqEoXmx7kfVSyal55rwLTYF Yd7n0Y8RtHZswYCIxYpZ/kTAlJDl+lpMIJ3lsu9CIIrrc6SgWrQZL4XVEM/CkdVl Oi5VH/6XQrYaVYF53lHPow7LWeRMf/eT/1ZRy164Gsp3x/G1t4GfKYS8egiMSqAy 6TF0Le/tJqBreanwvihVJRas3D27I74//0asIQeu9jgxRnAvaWOvMx5uCFTMfr5k E1rt5Bl7i5qRLs//hA9MPEGa9Tywx5muf9SQ3BH2D8jNlHcOWdDUntylcU1ZTeOA D9Ahs1NzxyQbOzxvTQG9 =QNSu -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
2011/6/11 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org: On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still I think that this is not a sane situation. it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus cement an echo chamber Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing with the Council? how is disagreeing with a Council decision valid grounds either ? punting people because they disagree with any group isn't really valid. -mike a user POV: If you are in the role of enforcing decision of the council and with disagreeing you mean acting versus their decision yes it's a very much valid ground. In real life if you are a policeman and disagree with politicians you must anyway enforce their laws or you're jailed. Anyway maybe the whole QA should resign (you too Diego) and election done again, seem the more correct thing at this point
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On 10.06.2011 14:44, Sebastian Pipping wrote: On 06/09/2011 03:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: do we need some kind of policy around membership on special project teams. QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might be another. in my eyes we do. too much power to be unregulated. what does it take to get this rolling? Getting someone to write a draft GLEP and submitting it for discussion. If you want to only cover QA then modifying GLEP 48 is enough but if we want end up covering multiple teams I would make a new GLEP. Regards, Petteri PS. this thread should be on gentoo-project signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On 10.06.2011 18:33, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote: * Samuli, extremist right wing parties are gaining power in your country, I think this is a way better reason to rebel than a stupid file. True Finns are not right wing. The foreign media seems to always get it wrong. They are a populistic conservative party. On the traditional left-right axis they are quite center. The parties with seats in the parliament are characterized for example here: http://www.loitto.com/tilastot/hsvaalikone11/rotaatiotulos-ellipsit.png The article is here (don't know how well Google translate will do): http://www.loitto.com/tilastot/hsvaalikone11/ True Finns are marked with purple (at the bottom). It is up to you, meanwhile I'll keep fighting for the camped people in Spain instead of some random piece of documentation. It was a fair election and should be respected even if one doesn't like the results. True Finns got a little below 20% of the vote so not knowing anything about Samuli's political views (not even any of my business any way) it's certainly possible that he voted for the cause you are trying to rally against. They do have problematic individuals in their ranks who can reflect badly on the party but if they break the law they are handled according to the law is it should be. In conclusion I don't think there's anything to rebel against with True Finns but I agree that we could focus our energy better. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
Am Freitag, 10. Juni 2011, 20:14:24 schrieb Donnie Berkholz: Perhaps interested people on the team could just say they want to be lead, and the council would pick one of them. I think leadership should come from the top. Luckily the council is elected... otherwise this would kind of remind me of one of my favourite Prince Philip quotes... :o) It's a pleasure to be in a country that isn't ruled by its people. -- Said to Paraguayan dictator Alfredo Stroessner on a state visit -- Andreas K. Huettel (dilfridge) Gentoo Linux developer kde, sci, arm, tex
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/11/2011 03:36 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 01.48 +0100, Markos Chandras ha scritto: I am sorry but this is not a way for a leader to treat the members of his team. I am retiring myself from QA as well. Do note that 4 members have already gone from QA. This cannot be a coincidence. For those who wouldn't get qa@g.o mail, Tomáš has also requested retirement from qa, in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368097#c66 : Markos for one you and vapier are the reason why i left the team because otherwise i would have to kick both of you out. So I'd like to know how you can even pretend to count four members when: - one retired because other members of the team decided to do as they like; - two has been kicked out for playing along just if they can also make the rules (as soon as a rule was enacted that they didn't like they decided to ignore it, even under request to either not do so or be removed from QA); - you decided to retire because I applied a warning I had sent in advance (on April 30th). Or maybe are you counting Sven who I haven't heard from in a year or two, and whose autorepoman mail has stopped coming ... probably before you ever became a developer? Maybe I scream in private, but what you three (keeping Tomáš out of this) are doing is crying in public because you're no longer allowed to poop in the sandbox you should keep clean. Do note that it was even your words: I am sorry but having elections every few months is not a solution. First we need to clean up the team, then become team, then have elections. Which is exactly what I'm going to do: I'm going to make sure that the team is on the same page: policies has to be followed, or they need to be changed. Which doesn't look like either of them (nor you I guess) want to do. I'm pretty sure I didn't ask much to the team beside actually following what the council decided. Finally, I'd like to point out that neither my character nor my actions have changed the slightest since the mail that Peper quoted — yet I was elected as team leader; it looks like though people wanted me to scream at anyone else beside them — too easy that way. And the only two people in the team who bothered to cast a vote (Luca and Christian), seems not to have an issue with me keeping this way. So, this might hurt your feelings, but I'm not really sorry to see you leave. As I said before I had been disappointed when people I had a high esteem of decided that rules shouldn't apply to them. Calm down please. I don't scream in public. I tried to start quiet a lot of discussions in private before I make my decision. You are right. Retire is not a good work for the 4 people that left. Maybe gone is more appropriate. But, seeing your tone, it is very hard for me to even start a discussion cause everything leads to personal attacks, irony and Mediterranean temper that we both have. I lost all of my motivation and energy with Samuli's case. IMHO, kicking them out wont improve anything. They both agreed to follow the establish policy after all. QA team requires *active* (do note the word) people, not just people with high respect to rules. You have to admit, that now, you and Dane are the only ones who are really *active*. Can you two really handle the QA load by yourself? Diego, leadership means that you have to motivate and inspire people. People need to follow you not because they afraid of you but because they admire and respect you. You never really tried to talk to us and get some insights. Everytime we received a mail from you it was because someone has screwed up something and you were mad at him. Please, just stop and think for a second that you *may* be wrong at some points. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJN8zQfAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LC6FkP/itf0GNrUp2DVlCr4mhR9hPy hsrPOHErKiqxRwWBh3zCizMjc0NiwxiAMw7Lj5VZRFxTCRf8JE06AZa5yias0wIJ m6eDIPmw/Whb2GHtj8PD7YZ2yV5bD72PonRN63AAznXjXdEex+Jg/LpqEew9J2Q0 oDgLe9LMWQJA/r6zMxFqp73mQXBYsHgGlYBp1v/s9TrKpjjJMxaAA8sx25zhjkuQ JblUopHefYzUL/OCNQAKnEIaYF38B4rrvoCLan7yUyXgaxD5PPDigHVFxf98P/qJ LrEBcZW9+LZV+zkeZgHnmM+HITzdGJIGg56Hm5BtZYYLr0mlf+RAwO+wYTfD/zNQ YKViVGI1AmEfTkWczv//nKp2ezujiHJHGKO8/csVQk0URXcwbyWJR/4PSKMQsGku XiIzjFDMIRgsy6NjYoU6ERt00una1RQ/kkz0LmBYipnlARBgtm3s+XlpV9H6PpgI v+qNO8CaXURFOlEiSFftLYNYpuL/gkLbZjbX49gBfrxAgmGL8cr2+fek2fZrafSS BxkRWuXoq6j1gP5LSM3wCEWjffQGYSusrt0DRI0KUVL8e+UfkMw/A1B6H3X96x+d mxKs5AFoqAfEpOn5+yZ+wx/xey30PN07NOpCGS9E2TYXx67NJbkwVPOXpIiPtO1+ +6HuhkJCBMlMpp5rPjOP =sCAr -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11-06-2011 09:23, Markos Chandras wrote: On 06/11/2011 03:36 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: snip Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 01.48 +0100, Markos Chandras ha scritto: Maybe I scream in private, but what you three (keeping Tomáa out of this) are doing is crying in public because you're no longer allowed to poop in the sandbox you should keep clean. Do note that it was even your words: I am sorry but having elections every few months is not a solution. First we need to clean up the team, then become team, then have elections. Which is exactly what I'm going to do: I'm going to make sure that the team is on the same page: policies has to be followed, or they need to be changed. Which doesn't look like either of them (nor you I guess) want to do. I'm pretty sure I didn't ask much to the team beside actually following what the council decided. Finally, I'd like to point out that neither my character nor my actions have changed the slightest since the mail that Peper quoted yet I was elected as team leader; it looks like though people wanted me to scream at anyone else beside them too easy that way. And the only two people in the team who bothered to cast a vote (Luca and Christian), seems not to have an issue with me keeping this way. So, this might hurt your feelings, but I'm not really sorry to see you leave. As I said before I had been disappointed when people I had a high esteem of decided that rules shouldn't apply to them. Calm down please. I don't scream in public. I tried to start quiet a lot of discussions in private before I make my decision. You are right. Retire is not a good work for the 4 people that left. Maybe gone is more appropriate. But, seeing your tone, it is very hard for me to even start a discussion cause everything leads to personal attacks, irony and Mediterranean temper that we both have. I lost all of my motivation and energy with Samuli's case. IMHO, kicking them out wont improve anything. They both agreed to follow the establish policy after all. QA team requires *active* (do note the word) people, not just people with high respect to rules. You have to admit, that now, you and Dane are the only ones who are really *active*. Can you two really handle the QA load by yourself? Diego, leadership means that you have to motivate and inspire people. People need to follow you not because they afraid of you but because they admire and respect you. You never really tried to talk to us and get some insights. Everytime we received a mail from you it was because someone has screwed up something and you were mad at him. Please, just stop and think for a second that you *may* be wrong at some points. I see Diego's actions as cleaning up the QA team. Some members of the QA team have left it because they got tired of how some people in the QA team would not respect some rules and do everything to prevent QA team from being able to enforce them. Unfortunately, Tomas is not the first member to leave because of this. If the actions of Diego make Tomas and the others want to get back to QA, I'll consider this whole issue a success. Markos, the worst thing that I, looking from the outside, noticed about QA was how some members were too quick at using the QA hammer to impose their ideas to others, but always found ways not to follow some established policies and not to get them applied to themselves. As a council member, I am very happy to see Diego trying to fix QA, doing his best to enforce policies and caring about the tree not being broken. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN82rLAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPoXQP/22xC9pQmuO47Tavg+mpOiMe Z59O7GGNb47sJb9am8+MHh4r1tP1W/KvMNsb8WzDC+OsqMjfKmyOOjOfyg5xK+VY US722Xj08L3js93qVJs/fI4jsa0GsBZBpdDoJrAZmRco3i42W6mP5KneOyMD5h98 uWnUFP8f7e7qy69usio05gIqn25SCDa5QT3BIL/OB8j9VPLPzdw66Ps41Dvp+u9q JRUXv99oV5WsOauducSz7n2K71RP8bh5mUIMBI01WfUk9AWpzFLlMy4SMQMKatNY Xsm1eJsn4yM9tKzWjTVn8D5rsjnb7zAYLoMPj2Mi5hkSrG7MOZ3X2rFx1PTFwBdi ikkqe8SrK/+otbl9BZG2nw2Oypw9JwlnLf6XGyAeykpz66IOfwZzY1aUIc94LMrb LsJTuDqpEMAaN32Sykt/VQicZBnUTDoWfF70GH1lFFXYC99/YBiqnQuR09w4y0iw U7QZIf1YDqmijDxbnwJeIQN9vKrMm6HZrbeN0YFmEi+MRmp0BQUEDje3vtl+ogud H2iDzLcw3bGkCNJWaRUY8Yl3cS9YuWqA1R5p70gG3QvRmGfM9H9kNLvqD9w5Dn5y HRQg+U6e7cpDA9vcOQTIRZ2ntPEuBoir907sP/dp41XGrffqjsVmzBjBFSKQB5KV 82g/eiuhMfjAVwksTCSP =Pgv4 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 04:36:20 +0200 Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@gmail.com wrote: Which is exactly what I'm going to do: I'm going to make sure that the team is on the same page: policies has to be followed, or they need to be changed. Which doesn't look like either of them (nor you I guess) want to do. I'm pretty sure I didn't ask much to the team beside actually following what the council decided. Finally, I'd like to point out that neither my character nor my actions have changed the slightest since the mail that Peper quoted — yet I was elected as team leader; it looks like though people wanted me to scream at anyone else beside them — too easy that way. And the only two people in the team who bothered to cast a vote (Luca and Christian), seems not to have an issue with me keeping this way. So, this might hurt your feelings, but I'm not really sorry to see you leave. As I said before I had been disappointed when people I had a high esteem of decided that rules shouldn't apply to them. Reading all this, I kept wondering how you think your self-appointed position as team lead (look how I'm stretching the definition there) is still tenable. Good luck there. jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Friday, June 10, 2011 22:36:20 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: - two has been kicked out for playing along just if they can also make the rules (as soon as a rule was enacted that they didn't like they decided to ignore it, even under request to either not do so or be removed from QA); if i've been ignoring the rules so egregiously that you had to silently remove me from the QA team, then it should be trivial for you to justify your actions. Finally, I'd like to point out that neither my character nor my actions have changed the slightest since the mail that Peper quoted — yet I was elected as team leader; it looks like though people wanted me to scream at anyone else beside them — too easy that way. And the only two people in the team who bothered to cast a vote (Luca and Christian), seems not to have an issue with me keeping this way. yes, lack of choice and actual votes makes you the default winner, but you really shouldnt play it up like everyone thinks you should be in the role. ive stated many times that your approach is not how a leader should behave, but you usually counter it with more of the same. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote: please re-read GLEP48 as I updated it at the end of the council meeting to reflect the changes already approved on March (txt version, I still need to update the html). The GLEP states that the team lead shall be elected annually by the team members. The same GLEP also says that developers who would like to join the project must be approved by the QA team lead. And seemingly the QA lead also has the power to expel devs from the team (I cannot find where this is documented though). So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still I think that this is not a sane situation. (A similar system functions for the pope and his cardinals though. ;-) Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Saturday, June 11, 2011 15:18:09 Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote: please re-read GLEP48 as I updated it at the end of the council meeting to reflect the changes already approved on March (txt version, I still need to update the html). The GLEP states that the team lead shall be elected annually by the team members. The same GLEP also says that developers who would like to join the project must be approved by the QA team lead. And seemingly the QA lead also has the power to expel devs from the team (I cannot find where this is documented though). i dont recall this ever coming up, so there would need to be a GLEP update i imagine in order to make this happen So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still I think that this is not a sane situation. it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus cement an echo chamber -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On 11-06-2011 21:18:09 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still I think that this is not a sane situation. This issue was already raised on the Glep 48 update (as nominated for next meeting) thread, but disregarded as unnecessary bureaucratic stuff. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still I think that this is not a sane situation. it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus cement an echo chamber Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing with the Council? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still I think that this is not a sane situation. it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus cement an echo chamber Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing with the Council? how is disagreeing with a Council decision valid grounds either ? punting people because they disagree with any group isn't really valid. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On 06/09/2011 03:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: do we need some kind of policy around membership on special project teams. QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might be another. in my eyes we do. too much power to be unregulated. what does it take to get this rolling? sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/10/11 07:44, Sebastian Pipping wrote: On 06/09/2011 03:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: do we need some kind of policy around membership on special project teams. QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might be another. in my eyes we do. too much power to be unregulated. what does it take to get this rolling? Part of me thinks this is a good idea for the simple reason that some people seem to have issues with QA/DevRel. Perhaps if the lead were appointed by council there would be less raging every time the team tried to do anything. But then again, we can't all play nice over a freaking ChangeLog, even with Council making the call, so I somehow doubt this will fix *anything at all* I do not want to see elections for 3 team leads. As far as I'm concerned, it's way too much of a hassle. Having said that, council appointments for the team lead may not be a bad idea. Maybe it will work. I doubt it, but I'm open to try it. My fear there is I don't want to see team leads changing every year just because there is a new council. If the team is working well together, there is no sense in fubaring that merely because we can. Perhaps do council appointments if the lead steps down / if the team calls for a re-appointment (there would need to be rules for this part. I don't want to see a new appointee merely because the lead upset one person. Perhaps if more than 50% of the team or like 10 other developers are asking for a new lead or some such foo.) Also, while I like the idea of cleaning out those teams once in a while for inactive members, I'm not a huge fan of a new lead coming in and removing people from the team just because. Lastly, given that it will be the lead for a given team, I think that team should have the ability to pick their candidates to go to council, and maybe just give Council the vote on who gets it. Or, have council appoint people they think are fit, and the team can vote from there. Either way I think would work alright. Just my 2 cents. Regards, - -- Dane Smith (c1pher) Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86 RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531op=index -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN8haaAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxBssQAINmFDp4jYccbNlVmb6iu4QI 4n4Dlg5BXFhIGJu0gCc+Vx7YxvyL+5stNJthKqpeE1ics/2yhBHK/Jc+DTDLyM2G CrYDIC2oS+4spa/DgG0/LDW6RlpLObl3cTnYDtyXq6Fu3+uKTXFm2KIghhHA18cX WHUZRyuocIhkMFvQzIwrddzx8UYvtlFJCB0CUu6ke4/5YE/Q7yBEXEt7GlMNHA5o gwxATVoyyN4M+Q2rxQXuv2IeW9X5DCjOP5LyT6sbOanYPSAgr+95MTxoGZ8LtJu9 iODYN85C/4DaNtyhFvzYA2KtlywRKH1fJwChCPVlIq3SuEdJvpQ6zvvS2UdSm6no qc8oyZEEI076dOiSnT69cyLrsXm9gRY3tIyh1pHmfYzKVVi89yrMzCpKOEd8GL2v V9Xss4JJBZbi60HfYp3gJqozhK6btSsbJ7sH3Kl66nTkownwSEZVigzurAOm+ct5 r7/zKQR8s/fUtFP6bVprDgJpQKMi4TMPYgti6IM7g2iAYfK4v2JCFxUdf0QB/+Is F/XriVGcotvt85Mgj96uzn1I/U1OzrkRdUh30SHectJ91fEHOIVEu1QYbCIWZXKD 0UTJ2BUMZqvPW+8BuHb3G/sYu6iRsHbTKPLYa5vgw2V5nfgjU7fFP0XPEIgbCF/M 4+/PcKQUwBOiIpcl+NDc =8ajo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
I was thinking of writting this in private, but I bet it will do more good if I do it public. I'm 22 (most of you could call me a kid) and a reasonably recent new developer and I'm sad having to ask you, am I the only one seeing childishness on your actions, and this yours implies at least Samuli, Mike and Diego and probably many others. You are discussing and reveling for a stupid file, even worse, its not even code and solutions to automate the process have been proposed so you are discussing over nothing. If you guys want to rebel I can give you many good reasons which are meaningful that a few lines of something that's not even code: * Mike your country considers freedom of speech a restrictable right, maybe you should fight and rebel against that instead of a stupid file. * Samuli, extremist right wing parties are gaining power in your country, I think this is a way better reason to rebel than a stupid file. * Diego, Berlusconi a way better reason to be outraged I think. I know this will serve for nothing you are going to keep discussing over pride? 10 minutes of your live? instead of fighting what really should matter you. It is up to you, meanwhile I'll keep fighting for the camped people in Spain instead of some random piece of documentation. Have a nice day. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
El 10/06/11 17:33, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) escribió: * Diego, Berlusconi a way better reason to be outraged I think. Small clarification here: I'm not comparing Diego with Berlusconi AFAIK he isn't a corrupt underage fucking politician, I'm pointing him Berlusconi ruling Italy is a quite good reason to fight against compared to adding some lines in a file. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dane Smith c1p...@gentoo.org wrote: Perhaps do council appointments if the lead steps down / if the team calls for a re-appointment (there would need to be rules for this part. I don't want to see a new appointee merely because the lead upset one person. Perhaps if more than 50% of the team or like 10 other developers are asking for a new lead or some such foo.) ... Lastly, given that it will be the lead for a given team, I think that team should have the ability to pick their candidates to go to council, and maybe just give Council the vote on who gets it. Or, have council appoint people they think are fit, and the team can vote from there. Either way I think would work alright. I also dislike the general election idea, for the reasons you state. I think the ideal process is something like: 1. Teams put forth recommendations for who THEY would like to see as the lead, perhaps with more than one choice. 2. The Council is free to pick any lead they like, and change that lead any time they like. 3. However, the Council is encouraged that unless there is a big reason not to do so, they just accept or choose from the team's nominations, and only do so annually. I don't like the concept of the council only getting to ratify a decision already made by the team. This will just lead to more bickering on the lists about the wrong people being on the team or whatever and the fox being in charge of the henhouse or whatever. The Council has a mandate, because they are elected. You can disagree with the Council, but you can't argue that their decisions don't have SOME kind of backing simply because they have been selected by the dev community as a whole. By giving the Council ultimate authority (and accountability) that mandate then is conferred upon the team leads for QA, Devrel, etc. This is not unlike how any business or similar concern is run. Teams usually know best how they should be run, but they still fall under the board or whatever and as long as they're doing a good job boards generally just rubber-stamp their recommendations. When things go wrong, then the board takes a more active role, even to the point of completely overriding the team if that is what it takes to fix things - but usually they just put somebody in charge that they feel will handle things. Government isn't a good example as it tends to be dominated by cronyism, and I think there is general agreement that this is NOT how we want things to work. The council should not generally fiddle with every little thing QA does, or whatever, but they can step in when the issue is serious. Rich
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/09/2011 08:54 PM, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: On 9 June 2011 15:44, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@gmail.com wrote: Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's member in respect to the QA work, I don't think it is unexpected of the lead to remove those people who have shown no intention to collaborate. Beside, I warned both of you that you had to follow policy or get out, neither of you even _bothered_ replying to my request. On 04/18/2010 03:31 PM, Diego Elio “Flameeyes” Pettenò wrote: Diego, you were nominated as well. Do you accept? Muahhahaha — no I don't think it would be a good idea. It would almost certainly end up with a pissing-off contest between me and council or me and devrel depending on their position Guess you were right after all. I am sorry but this is not a way for a leader to treat the members of his team. I am retiring myself from QA as well. Do note that 4 members have already gone from QA. This cannot be a coincidence. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJN8rtpAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCZ40P+wUFxLCUr1faz1E1QwpNpvi9 c7keRqI8KGGIwW1x1EPypK1dXJbxvhpBoiZzMrI6PQin1iA8wqEO0A8vxphRGwTB efK5YtKVH8pT/KG47noy/Hb+subIdpo50Hlj6S6Osf7Fw3uIkjwgSx9xgTxInHKZ y3FuBLuhrLCZhhJc2qruf/4Dl1Vlkq4OtMiggs2PAh0zfsCcnxhg4ddsTaPlzqo4 dyLUX56k8RTuLX0e5WYtEme6Qi9SbUDK9RkInoRKjWi2MqUqN79WFHCQrbpzx2Zw b8CEGG2jkBKwC35BIdJ4EqNtZ30EgbjVGOqDjILkFrkFIy8hyaNIBdIQK0rgfzD8 h8SggwqZ5wYkHY957JcgH3Fr1LcHtvHeXd4QdYUUkmqcdOJZDL1BFi+IHK/ms20W m/SCmZ7UEOjHPtxvsICkDosqnVtaSKOAQSZ3BIfaUYHIDlnm+KdioTejQ2Eiw/vj 1PHh1kKX2BOe78wvlAjWBSCzAI4lBoMpaLd5Lcs+YhAn91FkQRNSqUBPzgnbSdLt 8RYUcUjAhv6Tw9OYGm8+19sx/grt1HNfj07uUL2Vx02wKY1/eyFA5iOVvtHSAZZI Kuh3HBce1SeKYbUDiOh61K1QVGgjpHuo+70aHG8MxKtN5ga9o6BORQF6EQBdrW99 t0prmys52YyY0pGo4ylF =xzyy -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 01.48 +0100, Markos Chandras ha scritto: I am sorry but this is not a way for a leader to treat the members of his team. I am retiring myself from QA as well. Do note that 4 members have already gone from QA. This cannot be a coincidence. For those who wouldn't get qa@g.o mail, Tomáš has also requested retirement from qa, in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368097#c66 : Markos for one you and vapier are the reason why i left the team because otherwise i would have to kick both of you out. So I'd like to know how you can even pretend to count four members when: - one retired because other members of the team decided to do as they like; - two has been kicked out for playing along just if they can also make the rules (as soon as a rule was enacted that they didn't like they decided to ignore it, even under request to either not do so or be removed from QA); - you decided to retire because I applied a warning I had sent in advance (on April 30th). Or maybe are you counting Sven who I haven't heard from in a year or two, and whose autorepoman mail has stopped coming ... probably before you ever became a developer? Maybe I scream in private, but what you three (keeping Tomáš out of this) are doing is crying in public because you're no longer allowed to poop in the sandbox you should keep clean. Do note that it was even your words: I am sorry but having elections every few months is not a solution. First we need to clean up the team, then become team, then have elections. Which is exactly what I'm going to do: I'm going to make sure that the team is on the same page: policies has to be followed, or they need to be changed. Which doesn't look like either of them (nor you I guess) want to do. I'm pretty sure I didn't ask much to the team beside actually following what the council decided. Finally, I'd like to point out that neither my character nor my actions have changed the slightest since the mail that Peper quoted — yet I was elected as team leader; it looks like though people wanted me to scream at anyone else beside them — too easy that way. And the only two people in the team who bothered to cast a vote (Luca and Christian), seems not to have an issue with me keeping this way. So, this might hurt your feelings, but I'm not really sorry to see you leave. As I said before I had been disappointed when people I had a high esteem of decided that rules shouldn't apply to them. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote: I like the idea of appointed leads instead of holding elections, it fits into my big picture of less bureaucracy and more meritocracy (see my email re running for council on -project). Appointments would be made by the next level up from the lead. So project leads would come from the council, subproject leads from the project, etc. What problem are you trying to solve? There maybe some point doing this for projects that have elevated powers (like QA or devrel), but I think for normal projects our current system works well enough. Ulrich
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the team. - Samuli On 06/09/2011 04:10 PM, Diego Petteno (flameeyes) wrote: flameeyes11/06/09 13:10:22 Modified: index.xml Log: Update roster. Sven hasn't been around for a long time; Mike and Samuli are not accepting working as part of the team. Revision ChangesPath 1.50 xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/index.xml file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/index.xml?rev=1.50view=markup plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/index.xml?rev=1.50content-type=text/plain diff : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/index.xml?r1=1.49r2=1.50 Index: index.xml === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/index.xml,v retrieving revision 1.49 retrieving revision 1.50 diff -u -r1.49 -r1.50 --- index.xml 30 May 2011 18:59:02 - 1.49 +++ index.xml 9 Jun 2011 13:10:22 - 1.50 @@ -42,16 +42,13 @@ dev role=Leadflameeyes/dev -dev role=Member description=autorepomanswegener/dev dev role=Memberc1pher/dev dev role=Membersolar/dev dev role=Membertove/dev dev role=Memberlu_zero/dev -dev role=Member description=Support Personnelvapier/dev dev role=Memberpeper/dev dev role=Memberidl0r/dev dev role=Memberhwoarang/dev -dev role=Memberssuominen/dev dev role=Memberdarkside/dev dev role=Memberulm/dev
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Jun 9, 2011 9:27 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the team. So, without trying to comment on the particulars of this situation (of which I'm blissfully unaware beyond being able to guess from recent list traffic), do we need some kind of policy around membership on special project teams. QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might be another. Options might include council appointment or council appoints lead who appoints others. Direct election is another route, but I don't like the idea of having 5 annual elections and recalls and all that. Better to elect the top and let them reign in those beneath... I'm not saying that anybody is doing a bad job now, but if people have gripes better to have a proper route of escalation than just bickering on-list. If they get to the top and aren't happy then they can just stew or run for election next term... Rich
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
Il giorno gio, 09/06/2011 alle 16.20 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto: Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the team. Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's member in respect to the QA work, I don't think it is unexpected of the lead to remove those people who have shown no intention to collaborate. Beside, I warned both of you that you had to follow policy or get out, neither of you even _bothered_ replying to my request. If you don't like it, see Rich's comment (with whom I vastly agree). -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On Thursday, June 09, 2011 09:44:34 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: Il giorno gio, 09/06/2011 alle 16.20 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto: Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the team. Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's member in respect to the QA work, I don't think it is unexpected of the lead to remove those people who have shown no intention to collaborate. and as lead, you really should notify the group/people of team changes instead of just making silent cvs commits Beside, I warned both of you that you had to follow policy or get out, neither of you even _bothered_ replying to my request. if you're referring to your internal e-mail, i didnt bother because it wasnt relevant and wasnt worth replying to -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml
On 06/09/2011 06:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday, June 09, 2011 09:44:34 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: Il giorno gio, 09/06/2011 alle 16.20 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto: Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the team. Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's member in respect to the QA work, I don't think it is unexpected of the lead to remove those people who have shown no intention to collaborate. and as lead, you really should notify the group/people of team changes instead of just making silent cvs commits +1 Beside, I warned both of you that you had to follow policy or get out, neither of you even _bothered_ replying to my request. if you're referring to your internal e-mail, i didnt bother because it wasnt relevant and wasnt worth replying to that was my impression of the mail as well, the tone used in the mail was not a request but something worse. was not to be taken seriously.
