Hi List,
The following mail has been written on Tuesday before alot of the recent
discussions. It hasn't been changed except for three passages, which I left
out (marked with [...]) which had no actual content, and don't make sense
to be send to the list, but only to the actual addressee, who
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 01:25, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Ubuntu uses Community Council. I suggested Community Relations.
*Shrug*
Community Relations sounds fine to me.
Here's my problem with it: essentially what you're arguing for the
proctors to be is the same as what devrel should be (at
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Then why are there public archives?
Note the subtle difference between receiving and reading in public
archives. Some people may prefer their mail client.
Disallowing someone from receiving mail from the list just to make it
possibly a little
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:25:23 -0500
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] The previous doc had no moral weight, so to
speak, because it was imposed on devs without any real discussion, and
that's made it hard to enforce. Moreover, there's long been notable
distrust of devrel, which
Richard Brown wrote:
Respectfully, you're wrong. When you're writing a
policy document we do need to dissect every word.
I disagree with that. At least in my country, laws are written in a
flexible enough way to give judges the ability to interprete the law to
a certain extend, and it works
Hi.
Wernfried Haas wrote:
[snip]
Please define access. Does that mean they get to ban people from the
forums and all #gentoo-* channels? Do they get mod/op powers or just
request it from the respective forum moderators / channel operators
(who _have_ to follow their orders)?
[snip]
Hi.
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 Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ.
Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or
refusing to accept updates to their previous contributions? Does this
extend to
Simon Stelling wrote:
Richard Brown wrote:
Respectfully, you're wrong. When you're writing a
policy document we do need to dissect every word.
I disagree with that. At least in my country, laws are written in a
flexible enough way to give judges the ability to interprete the law
to a
Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
it's all rethoric, what is your opinion?
On 3/14/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 Jorge Manuel B. S.
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100
Ioannis Aslanidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
it's all rethoric, what is your opinion?
I think his intention was to
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 Ioannis Aslanidis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
it's all rethoric, what is your opinion?
My opinion is that screwing over
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: [Wed Mar 14 2007, 10:02:47AM CDT]
In my view, there's one important penalty missing from this code of
conduct. Actually, the most important penalty - as a last measure, all
input from a person to the project will be denied. What I mean is that
for worst
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ.
Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or
refusing to accept updates to their previous
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 13:06:13 Stephen Bennett wrote:
...
I think his intention was to demonstrate that the idea is implausible,
at best counterproductive and at worst disastrous. Which it is, and
which he did fairly well.
Or maybe he wanted to make it sound like the idea was implausible,
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:31:57 -0300
Mauricio Lima Pilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or maybe he wanted to make it sound like the idea was implausible,
which it isn't IMO.
And if refusing to use code credited to that individual means that we
can't use the linux kernel or bash?
--
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 15:01:49 Stephen Bennett wrote:
And if refusing to use code credited to that individual means that we
can't use the linux kernel or bash?
We don't need to bother hunting all the contributions in all open-source
projects to avoid them, as it would be much of a PITA.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 18:24:58 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 Ioannis Aslanidis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
it's
Am Mittwoch 14 März 2007 19:18 schrieb Mauricio Lima Pilla:
We don't need to bother hunting all the contributions in all open-source
projects to avoid them, as it would be much of a PITA. We can be selective
and not accept code directly submitted by such users, which would clearly
state that
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ.
Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or
refusing to accept updates to their
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100
Ioannis Aslanidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
it's all rethoric,
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:31:17 -0100 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, this cannot have any backward application, nor should it. All
contributions made while respecting the guidelines, are valid
contributions. Yes, it prevents any further contributions in the
future - be it
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:56:31 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100
Ioannis Aslanidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be
your answers to
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:56:31 +0100
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you explain how this is implausible. Removing contributions by
a certain person may be silly or impossible. Refusing to accept new
contributions is, while a very harsh measure, a possibility.
Perhaps not
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 23:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:31:17 -0100 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, this cannot have any backward application, nor should it. All
contributions made while respecting the guidelines, are valid
contributions.
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 23:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
at do you think users will say when told that their system will
remain vulnerable to a remote root hole because Gentoo won't accept a
fix from a particular person? Do you think they'll smile, nod and
accept that their system is about to
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
So you consider it acceptable to remove the user's ability to use
packages and dependencies of those packages because of some personal
dislikes?
It should not be personal dislikes. Such a strong position should be well
considered by the ones
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
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
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 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
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
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 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
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
Hiya all,
As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml
comments and
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
Mike Bonar wrote:
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
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
64 matches
Mail list logo
