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