Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly > be lured into discussing with them. > > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen > as a sign of shameful silent admittance. > Can confirm: This was the first gentoo-dev thread I've ever posted to. I was frustrated in this thread mainly because I wasn't 100% certain if the persons who were making this thread - let's say "difficult" - I wasn't sure if they were developers/contributors, or just people who wandered into the list. archive readers might get confused too. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Accidental spoofing -> Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:01:39 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:43:15 -0800 > Matt Turner wrote: > > > > Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've > > done: email spoofing, > > That was a complete accident due to a new version of Kmail that had > the from field editable by default. It was NOT intentional. Not the > 1st time. The 2nd time was for confirmation. I was in disbelieve such > abuse was even possible with @gentoo.org addresses. That was a > shocking discovery given I have administrated mail severs for quite > some time. In part why I use ASSP. I filed a bug with KDE on that but of course went WONTFIX. I think its horrible as it allows people to spoof, spam and do bad things... Make From field in the composer read only https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373313 Me personally I would never make software or change it to allow people to make such a mistake. Others felt differently. I stopped using Kmail2. I use Claws-mail now, but it also has editable from field :( Email clients should only allow email address that are in configured accounts. But that is my opinion. Others seem to feel differently. I cannot see any good reasons for such really. -- William L. Thomson Jr. pgpUDnCxn4EyP.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:43:15 -0800 Matt Turner wrote: > > Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've > done: email spoofing, That was a complete accident due to a new version of Kmail that had the from field editable by default. It was NOT intentional. Not the 1st time. The 2nd time was for confirmation. I was in disbelieve such abuse was even possible with @gentoo.org addresses. That was a shocking discovery given I have administrated mail severs for quite some time. In part why I use ASSP. > doing whatever you did to get banned from GitHub That should never have happened. Over this comment. You tell me does this make any sense to ban someone from Gentoo's Github? Which did not go through Comrel or any normal channels. That was Gentoo Github administrator abuse. I said nothing here that was untrue. https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/1721#issuecomment-300178677 As a result I mentioned it again on this PR and then stopped responding. Given its off topic, I would be punished not the other. I felt I should have responded to not be rude. Given their lengthy response and any reply would be in detail. Just not worth it for me. https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/6033 > and then that time ten years ago that you evaded a mailing > list ban. My apologies. Thank you, very few if any have ever said that. It makes a huge difference! Not that I expect it from anyone. But I do try to say sorry when I am wrong. Think that is a sign of an adult, or man. In a nutshell others have cast their negative impression of me onto others. Who because person A feels this way about me, person B does as well and the rest of the dominos. No matter if its correct or not. That has gone on for many years. Been publicly defamed, etc. Even when I produce facts to counter it seems to not matter. We are in the group thinking generation it seems. I am not perfect, but I have never had bad intentions. I should never have been treated as I have been for a very long time. I would never seek to treat others that way. Even with the mistreatment I still do not respond in kind to others. No profanities, etc. Its not in my nature publicly surely not in written form. I have a sailors mouth, but I have a hard time typing such words Some may perceive disrespect or rudeness from me, but that maybe more my blunt nature than intentional disrespect. I spent to much time in the hood growing up. I know better, I am still alive... :) -- William L. Thomson Jr. pgpU89xjZTA1P.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800 >> Matt Turner wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. >>> wrote: >>> > That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind >>> > another's back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to >>> > assume someone would create a fake identity. Any minimal research >>> > can show otherwise. >>> >>> You did already evade a mailing list ban. >> >> If your talking about on -nfp in 2008. It was a ban that should never >> have happened in the first place. It surely made nothing better. > > Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've > done: email spoofing, doing whatever you did to get banned from > GitHub, and then that time ten years ago that you evaded a mailing > list ban. My apologies. > If you want to actually get banned from Gentoo you need to do a LOT worse than that stuff. People seem to assume that the worst they've seen somebody behave on a public mailing list is the worst they've ever behaved anywhere. People are generally on their best behavior in public. The sorts of things I've seen people get banned from Gentoo for are the sorts of things that would get just about anybody fired from any large business. While I wasn't as much of an insider in the days of yore as I've been in recent years, my general sense has been that things weren't very different back then. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800 > Matt Turner wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. >> wrote: >> > That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind >> > another's back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to >> > assume someone would create a fake identity. Any minimal research >> > can show otherwise. >> >> You did already evade a mailing list ban. > > If your talking about on -nfp in 2008. It was a ban that should never > have happened in the first place. It surely made nothing better. Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've done: email spoofing, doing whatever you did to get banned from GitHub, and then that time ten years ago that you evaded a mailing list ban. My apologies.
Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800 Matt Turner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind > > another's back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to > > assume someone would create a fake identity. Any minimal research > > can show otherwise. > > You did already evade a mailing list ban. If your talking about on -nfp in 2008. It was a ban that should never have happened in the first place. It surely made nothing better. My single post after ban was point to make a point. That bans can be easily circumvented. Also you DO NOT ban a just stepped down Trustee from the -nfp list. That shows massive disrespect. More so given what all I did. Other Trustees then still show me some respect over my actions then. I also did not hide, people knew it was me. No fake account etc. I do not hide ever. No one questions why I stepped down. Then or now. Nor the actions of those who motivated me to do that. Why? Because they were members of DevRel then. Also living near Alec, and having weekly gathers. I know I hung out with them a few times. It was more personal than anything against me and that was wrong to use Gentoo for personal reasons. The entire thing should never have happened. Alec can clear it up if he will tell his side. But he remains silent, for obvious reasons for years. I have called him out on this a few times. All it takes is a simple response from him to clear the air. After all he went to DevRel. Me being a problem is one Alec started by reporting me to DevRel. He is at least in part fault for everything since then involving me. One involved then Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto has been very bad for Gentoo. I used to talk to Petteri Rati all the time. Seeing them in the following presentation. It is of no surprise to me where Gentoo is at now. I could see this coming, and I did nothing. I let others convince me I was the problem so I went away. Yet things did not improve in my absence. Maybe I wasn't the problem Gentoo's Reform and Future (Petteri Räty, Jorge Manuel B. S. Published on Feb 5, 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ3vkUBQkyg You can see me talking to Petteri here, after Jorges comments. https://bugs.gentoo.org/135927#c5 -- William L. Thomson Jr.
Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On 12/04/2017 10:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Sorry last one, directed to Alec, but all should read. I hope you really mean that, we've all heard you complaining about this too many times already. -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
Sorry last one, directed to Alec, but all should read. On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:08:51 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > You could at least realize being here since 2008. If your not the one > making it better. Maybe do not give others a hard time or creating > more noise. I do not feel you are part of the solution I am sorry. > You had close to a decade to make a difference. This is where things > are and I am not to blame for Gentoo's entire community and/or > atmosphere Alec I am not blaming you for all of Gentoo's issues, nor is any one person responsible. What I do fault you for is the situation involving me since 2008. Which at many times you could clear the air telling your side which you admitted then only on -core. You let things spiral, and you started it all. Thanks, but I would appreciate an apology. It was wrong and has had cascading effects for over a decade now. Hardly your intentions then or now. You made a mistake, and eagerly went to DevRel reporting me. Which started a ball rolling no one could stop. That simple admission can change the tide some. If anything will clear up the misconception that I was kicked when I left. Less than a week or so after stepping down as a trustee. Requested retirement out of protest or disgust is not the same as being kicked. https://bugs.gentoo.org/135927#c7 Anytime an elected Trustee doing good work steps down mid term. Others should wonder why. If they leave entirely after. Someone did something to drive them away. Its simple logic. Much less show others respect which I was never. Which continues to this day. People will disrespect me before showing respect. Others take it to an extreme, and its all tolerated because its me, wltr the drama troll destroying Gentoo who won't go away. Despite the fact I did for years -- William L. Thomson Jr. pgpMO4A80dt7s.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 19:54:12 + Peter Stuge wrote: > I'm quite unimpressed by how mgorny and jstein behave there. Doesn't matter its ok because it was about me... I never did anything of that nature or other stuff. Yet action was sought to be taken against me years go and it propagates. Mine was a trivial violation if that. Though its been used against me many times since... Github, etc. https://bugs.gentoo.org/135927#c5 > I wouldn't accept that, were I leading the project. Cyndi Lauper - True Color https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPn0KFlbqX8 Wonder how they feel about others? -- William L. Thomson Jr.
Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind another's > back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to assume someone > would create a fake identity. Any minimal research can show otherwise. You did already evade a mailing list ban.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:29:26 +0100 Vincent-Xavier JUMEL wrote: > > Please do rembember that you can't solve all earth problems, not even > all Gentoo problems :) Technology is no means to resolve social issues. Our use of technology is bringing about entirely new unique social issues. Technology creates more social issues than it solves. People all over the world will never get along. That does not mean they should not have a place where they all come together for the benefit of all. That is where magic happens! -- William L. Thomson Jr. pgpi0pu51nRtc.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: net-misc/mediatomb
# Ian Whyman (04 Dec 2017) # Declared dead upstream. Masked for removal in 30 days # Please see net-misc/gerbera for a replacement. net-misc/mediatomb
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:54:38 -0500 Alec Warner wrote: > > I think you make my point sir; not debase it. You did (and continue > to do) many things, that are in fact > valuable What else may I have done since 08 had things been otherwise? Gentoo's loss. > However, you also contributed very negatively to the community. That is because the community needs to change. The atmosphere is negative without me. I was gone from 08-15. So I am to blame for that period. > This isn't a simple maths problem where as long as one does enough > good they can offset the bad. I'm fairly confident the community > doesn't want such an environment (and have repeatedly rejected it in > the past.) My simple math shows you have been here the entire time. Clearly you are not capable of making things better. Yet had a direct hand in making it worse. Good job! You could at least realize being here since 2008. If your not the one making it better. Maybe do not give others a hard time or creating more noise. I do not feel you are part of the solution I am sorry. You had close to a decade to make a difference. This is where things are and I am not to blame for Gentoo's entire community and/or atmosphere. -- William L. Thomson Jr. pgp8xFv9KLktq.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:18:04AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists > and solve some of the problems they are facing today. > > > Problems > > > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo- > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three: > > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same > person are seriously demotivating to everyone. > > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand. > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes > you don't even get a single on-topic reply. > > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one. > > > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their > activity. > > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply, > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list! > > > Proposal > > > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to > establish the following changes to the mailing lists: > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers. > > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open. > > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer. > > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers. > > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now. > > > Rationale > = > > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other > options to no avail. > > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were: > > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions > create more noise than leaving the issue as is. > > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure > hate speech that carries no value to anyone]. > > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months]. > > > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't > really solve the problem because: > > I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if > nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying > to themselves. > > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly > be lured into discussing with them. > > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen > as a sign of shameful silent admittance. > > > Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of > the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we > can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software > and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to > change that. > > Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good > moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without > causing huge delays, moderation has a number of
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
Le 2017-12-03 22:31, Michał Górny a écrit : Multiple people have tried, and as explained in the long rationale we haven't had any success. If you have a constructive ideas how to solve the problem otherwise, we're open to hear them. That's the whole purpose of this thread. Once or twice in 10 years, in a French association devoted to Free Software Advocacy such troll arise. Since closing list and recreating new one isn't a solution, someone has to step in : 1/ First warn firmly that inacceptable behavior is not tolerated 2/ after first warn, expell the offenser from the list. This extreme solution is taken by asociation representative, after trying to settle a resolution. Even if the nay-sayer have made some valuable contribution, you could set him out. If he come back, just unravel him and his method so every one will know him and apply a Usenet Death Penalty Truth is, people change in toxic environments. I can't solve all the problems immediately but I believe this is the first step towards improving things, also in myself and other developers having problems. Please do rembember that you can't solve all earth problems, not even all Gentoo problems :) -- Vincent-Xavier JUMEL GPG Id: 0x14ABB3F2 http://thetys-retz.net Rejoignez les 5334 adhérents de l'April http://www.april.org/adherer Parinux, logiciel libre à Paris : http://www.parinux.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017, William L Thomson wrote: [quote omitted] Can you keep this out of gentoo-dev, please? You personal reminiscences are very off-topic in this mailing list. Ulrich pgp9lk61Z9Iem.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day
I'm quite unimpressed by how mgorny and jstein behave there. I wouldn't accept that, were I leading the project. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:17:00 -0500 > Alec Warner wrote: > > > > Clearly if Gentoo could be successful if millions of people were > > killed; we would not choose to kill millions of people. > > Clearly if Gentoo could be successful if dozens of people were > > harassed; we would not choose to harass dozens of people? > > > > I think the advocacy is that people want a community where Gentoo can > > be successful without needing to harass anyone. A noble goal eh? > > If the cost of a successful Gentoo is people being harassed because it > > cannot sustain a safe community; perhaps Gentoo shouldn't exist > > The fact that you were the one who caused the problems for me in 08. > Who reported me to DevRel in 08 Alec? Are you proud of that some many > years later? Did that help the Foundation or Gentoo? I was gone from > 08-15 yet things did not improve and you are still here. > > That you ended up as a Trustee is ironic. Drive me out take my place > and do nothing. Which Gentoo never did get any official status with IRS. > No filings beyond the ones Daniel Robbins paid for out of his own > pocket When he created the Foundation and donated Gentoo to the > foundation. Least the work I did for the Foundation is visible and > stands to this very day. Same bank account I helped establish after > calling banks for 2 months solid post 911. Asking things like we have > an international foundation with trustees not in the US. Does not ring > any bells for money laundering or terrorism > > Perhaps people like you should not cause problems for and drive people > like me away. Then maybe Gentoo would have a real legal foundation, > budgets, weekly news letter paying for development, reimbursing > developers for travel, conferences, etc. Pretty much everything FreeBSD > has going on. You can see me referencing them any times in the -nfp > logs from when I was a Trustee. > > I think you make my point sir; not debase it. You did (and continue to do) many things, that are in fact valuable. However, you also contributed very negatively to the community. This isn't a simple maths problem where as long as one does enough good they can offset the bad. I'm fairly confident the community doesn't want such an environment (and have repeatedly rejected it in the past.) > Not to mention the lack of technical contributions. I can't find you > Alec where are your commits? Or other activity? > > wlt@ws /usr/portage > $ git shortlog -s -n --all | grep -i Thomson > 55 William L. Thomson Jr > wlt@ws /usr/portage > $ git shortlog -s -n --all | grep -i Alec > wlt@ws /usr/portage > $ git shortlog -s -n --all | grep -i Warner > > Keeping all this out of tree > https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo > > Much less other work on the Foundation. This is clear the people > responsible for killing and harming Gentoo. Many like you remain from > 2008. Still being just as destructive, masquerading as constructive. > While doing what? Technical or Foundation wise? > And yet still somehow people think what I say is valuable, even when I have not committed to the tree in years. Odd that. -A > > Show me the money :) > > -- > William L. Thomson Jr. >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:17:00 -0500 Alec Warner wrote: > > Clearly if Gentoo could be successful if millions of people were > killed; we would not choose to kill millions of people. > Clearly if Gentoo could be successful if dozens of people were > harassed; we would not choose to harass dozens of people? > > I think the advocacy is that people want a community where Gentoo can > be successful without needing to harass anyone. A noble goal eh? > If the cost of a successful Gentoo is people being harassed because it > cannot sustain a safe community; perhaps Gentoo shouldn't exist The fact that you were the one who caused the problems for me in 08. Who reported me to DevRel in 08 Alec? Are you proud of that some many years later? Did that help the Foundation or Gentoo? I was gone from 08-15 yet things did not improve and you are still here. That you ended up as a Trustee is ironic. Drive me out take my place and do nothing. Which Gentoo never did get any official status with IRS. No filings beyond the ones Daniel Robbins paid for out of his own pocket When he created the Foundation and donated Gentoo to the foundation. Least the work I did for the Foundation is visible and stands to this very day. Same bank account I helped establish after calling banks for 2 months solid post 911. Asking things like we have an international foundation with trustees not in the US. Does not ring any bells for money laundering or terrorism Perhaps people like you should not cause problems for and drive people like me away. Then maybe Gentoo would have a real legal foundation, budgets, weekly news letter paying for development, reimbursing developers for travel, conferences, etc. Pretty much everything FreeBSD has going on. You can see me referencing them any times in the -nfp logs from when I was a Trustee. Not to mention the lack of technical contributions. I can't find you Alec where are your commits? Or other activity? wlt@ws /usr/portage $ git shortlog -s -n --all | grep -i Thomson 55 William L. Thomson Jr wlt@ws /usr/portage $ git shortlog -s -n --all | grep -i Alec wlt@ws /usr/portage $ git shortlog -s -n --all | grep -i Warner Keeping all this out of tree https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo Much less other work on the Foundation. This is clear the people responsible for killing and harming Gentoo. Many like you remain from 2008. Still being just as destructive, masquerading as constructive. While doing what? Technical or Foundation wise? Show me the money :) -- William L. Thomson Jr. pgplnoN1SXetc.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:34:49 -0500 kuzetsa wrote: > On 12/04/2017 01:11 PM, Christopher Head wrote: > > On December 3, 2017 1:35:23 PM PST, "Michał Górny" > > wrote: > >> The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through > >> Bugzilla. This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the > >> specific issue without unnecessary distraction for other > >> developers who are not interested in the specific topic. > > While this is true for bugs, is it true for everything else > > as well? Bugzilla seems to me to be a more reactive, rather > > than proactive, tool when dealing with changes of behaviour > > in particular packages, eclasses, etc. > Reading the gentoo-dev list will still be an option. If there's > a bug already open for a planned change (as often happens when > blockers are expected, etc.), filing a bug and marking as a > blocker will be an option. If the behavior is known in > advance that it will break your configuration or workflow, > etc. I think it's still fine to file a bug about the oversight > before implemented occurs. If not appropriate to file as a bug, > there are project aliases you can mail concerns to. There are also matters like this one where Bugzilla is not very appropriate medium, IMO. For example instead of replaying to list I would file a new bug with title "Users maybe will not be allowed to post to gentoo-dev" and state my opinion there? Regards, Robert -- Róbert Čerňanský E-mail: ope...@tightmail.com Jabber: h...@jabber.sk
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:57:16 -0500 kuzetsa wrote: > On 12/04/2017 01:51 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 + > > "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > > > >> On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote: > >>> A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list: > >>> > >>> http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf > >>> https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same) > >>> > >>> ... and was itself cited a dozen or times: > >>> > >>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238 > >>> https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same) > > Anyone paying any attention to current events? Quite many business > > and governments have gone out of their way to protect and hide the > > actions of abusers. In most causes because they were money makers. > > I think that may contradict the article entirely. > > > 1) harvard business school research publication, not an "article" If you read it is called a working paper. Working Paper 16-057 Which is an article, or more work in progress subject to review, feedback, changes, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_paper https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/about/about.html http://www.dictionary.com/browse/article They have many 1502 http://www.hbs.edu/ Its confusing because on one page says Dylan Harvard Business School. But he's clearly at Northwestern University. I assume a student at Harvard Business school. Not sure hes relation. Dylan Minor Harvard Business School Dylan Minor Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/directory/minor_dylan.aspx -- William L. Thomson Jr. pgpFBuBhwbuTR.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:51 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 + > "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > > > On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote: > > > A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list: > > > > > > http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_ > d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf > > > https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same) > > > > > > ... and was itself cited a dozen or times: > > > > > > https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238 > > > https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same) > > Anyone paying any attention to current events? Quite many business and > governments have gone out of their way to protect and hide the actions > of abusers. In most causes because they were money makers. I think that > may contradict the article entirely. > Clearly if Gentoo could be successful if millions of people were killed; we would not choose to kill millions of people. Clearly if Gentoo could be successful if dozens of people were harassed; we would not choose to harass dozens of people? I think the advocacy is that people want a community where Gentoo can be successful without needing to harass anyone. A noble goal eh? If the cost of a successful Gentoo is people being harassed because it cannot sustain a safe community; perhaps Gentoo shouldn't exist? -A > Steve Jobbs was a toxic coworker. Most titans in tech would fall more > into toxic category. Ever hear of Balmer raging or Gates? Ellison? > Google any of their names or others with a hole and see what you get > > > I refer you also to a former Gentoo developer's talk on "A$$holes on > > your project" ... [1] > > > > [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZSli7QW4rg > > Based on this graph have things gotten better since 08? > https://youtu.be/-ZSli7QW4rg?t=3m > > Most every action since has hurt Gentoo big time. I left from 08 - 15. > I am not part of any of that. Why did it not recover with driving so > many out? That does way more harm than keeping people in > > A lesson many have yet to learn... > > As Donnie said conflict is good... > https://youtu.be/-ZSli7QW4rg?t=5m5s > > As Steve Jobbs said in this metaphor > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Yv-UdsmSo > > > -- > William L. Thomson Jr. >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On 12/04/2017 01:51 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 + > "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > >> On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote: >>> A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list: >>> >>> http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf >>> https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same) >>> >>> ... and was itself cited a dozen or times: >>> >>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238 >>> https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same) > Anyone paying any attention to current events? Quite many business and > governments have gone out of their way to protect and hide the actions > of abusers. In most causes because they were money makers. I think that > may contradict the article entirely. > 1) harvard business school research publication, not an "article" 2) if things don't change, I'll be one of the people to quit. 3) gentoo already has documented instances of people leaving. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day
It is interesting to see people discussing behavior on list while flat out ignoring the following. This person is NOT me! They showed in #gentoo-java the other day. Prior to that I have never had any contact. They shared the below log with me then. Which I found flattering and amusing. Haters will hate... That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind another's back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to assume someone would create a fake identity. Any minimal research can show otherwise. Further more associating with them me given how they speak of me. That immediately insults the other person for no reason. They likely had no idea who I was till others accused them of being me... Which caused them to research who I was and come to their own conclusions. The entire situation is laughable and shows a huge double standard. Not to mention a total lack of respect for others and immature behavior. Gentoo's status quo On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 21:49:44 -0600 R0b0t1 wrote: > 19:09 @floppym | wltjr really seems to make shit up when he > doen't know what he's talking about. > 19:20@mgorny | lol > 19:20@mgorny | we're talking about the real wltjr or the > r0b0t1 fake identity? > 19:21 @floppym | mgorny: There's a fake? > 19:22@mgorny | didn't you notice r0b0t1 on the mailing lists? > 19:22 @floppym | Nope. > 19:22 @floppym | I'm talking about the person filing bugs about > Portage failures on NFS, as well as bug > | 637160 > 19:22@mgorny | he appeared out of the blue a few weeks ago > 19:22 willikins | floppym: https://bugs.gentoo.org/637160 > "dev-python/pbr-3.1.1 access violation with pypy3"; > | Gentoo Linux, Current packages; UNCO; > wlt-ml:prometheanfire > 19:25@mgorny | > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/7f2b9a05baf062acc8bf7b539949f5b9 > 19:25@mgorny | this guy > 19:25 @floppym | Oh, yes. He seems to conherent to be wltjr. > 19:26@mgorny | 'i know nothing but i'm going to pretend i'm > the smartest guy around, and try to prove > | everyone who disagrees with me is stupid' > 19:27 @floppym | I see posts from him dating back to 2016; I > think it's a different person. > 19:28 jstein | But this robot seems to need some kind of > repair or recalibration in my eyes > 19:29@mgorny | floppym: maybe. but he behaves quite similar > 19:31 * | floppym shrugs > 19:32 jstein | the members on our mailinglist handle this > troll very well and do not get triggered by his > | statements. > 19:32 @floppym | If only the same could be said for wltjr... > 19:34--> | fekepp > (~Thunderbi@2a02:8071:31ac:c00:221:ccff:fed4:6de7) has joined > #gentoo-python > 19:34 jstein | where do I remember this nick from? Bugs? > 19:36 jstein | the robot did not write any mail after 9th. I > expected he was set to "moderated". > -- William L. Thomson Jr. pgppVz4FpIqZj.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 + "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote: > > A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list: > > > > http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf > > https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same) > > > > ... and was itself cited a dozen or times: > > > > https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238 > > https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same) Anyone paying any attention to current events? Quite many business and governments have gone out of their way to protect and hide the actions of abusers. In most causes because they were money makers. I think that may contradict the article entirely. Steve Jobbs was a toxic coworker. Most titans in tech would fall more into toxic category. Ever hear of Balmer raging or Gates? Ellison? Google any of their names or others with a hole and see what you get > I refer you also to a former Gentoo developer's talk on "A$$holes on > your project" ... [1] > > [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZSli7QW4rg Based on this graph have things gotten better since 08? https://youtu.be/-ZSli7QW4rg?t=3m Most every action since has hurt Gentoo big time. I left from 08 - 15. I am not part of any of that. Why did it not recover with driving so many out? That does way more harm than keeping people in A lesson many have yet to learn... As Donnie said conflict is good... https://youtu.be/-ZSli7QW4rg?t=5m5s As Steve Jobbs said in this metaphor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Yv-UdsmSo -- William L. Thomson Jr. pgp2GSURTuk35.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On 12/04/2017 01:11 PM, Christopher Head wrote: > On December 3, 2017 1:35:23 PM PST, "Michał Górny" wrote: >> The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through Bugzilla. >> This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the specific issue >> without unnecessary distraction for other developers who are not >> interested in the specific topic. > While this is true for bugs, is it true for everything else > as well? Bugzilla seems to me to be a more reactive, rather > than proactive, tool when dealing with changes of behaviour > in particular packages, eclasses, etc. --snip-- > Bugzilla isn’t so easily discoverable, given the number of > bugs filed; gentoo-dev has the nice property that the > maintainers self-select which proposed changes are important > enough to announce, which Bugzilla doesn’t do. So if I wanted > to be notified of all important changes to core system > packages on Bugzilla, today, I would have to (1) choose the > set of packages to follow myself, probably missing a few in > the process, and (2) filter out the unimportant bug mail > which currently never reaches this list at all. Reading the gentoo-dev list will still be an option. If there's a bug already open for a planned change (as often happens when blockers are expected, etc.), filing a bug and marking as a blocker will be an option. If the behavior is known in advance that it will break your configuration or workflow, etc. I think it's still fine to file a bug about the oversight before implemented occurs. If not appropriate to file as a bug, there are project aliases you can mail concerns to. {reference below} On the other hand, if it's not obvious there will be breakage, then posting to the gentoo-dev list can't prevent it. Also, the original proposal did state that non-devs who contribute can request post permission, as needed. {reference below} On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open. > > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On December 3, 2017 1:35:23 PM PST, "Michał Górny" wrote: > >The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through Bugzilla. >This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the specific issue >without unnecessary distraction for other developers who are not >interested in the specific topic. While this is true for bugs, is it true for everything else as well? Bugzilla seems to me to be a more reactive, rather than proactive, tool when dealing with changes of behaviour in particular packages, eclasses, etc.. That is to say, if I object to the current behaviour in a particular eclass, in Portage, or in some core package with high impact, I can file a bug. If someone is considering changing behaviour and I want to voice my opinion on that proposal, Bugzilla is less helpful. Case 1, the developer does it without non-dev-community input and I am left with the only choice being to object after the fact, when my system is already broken. Case 2, the developer files a bug describing the change and then implements it; in this case, we suffer from the problem that Bugzilla isn’t so easily discoverable, given the number of bugs filed; gentoo-dev has the nice property that the maintainers self-select which proposed changes are important enough to announce, which Bugzilla doesn’t do. So if I wanted to be notified of all important changes to core system packages on Bugzilla, today, I would have to (1) choose the set of packages to follow myself, probably missing a few in the process, and (2) filter out the unimportant bug mail which currently never reaches this list at all. -- Christopher Head signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶59 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1 napisał: > As noted, there is one: analyzing the actions of those who are being > "attacked" to see why people are bothering to do it in the first > place. I sincerely doubt the offensive parties are doing what they are > doing without cause. Most of the affected developers are perfectly aware of the purpose of those attacks. If there was anything to be done to resolve the situation peacefully, we'd have done it long time ago. However, we can't and are not going to yield to people's unfounded demands based purely on the pressure inflicted by their misbehavior. I believe this is as far as I can answer you. Going beyond that goes into public judgment of private issues which is unacceptable on this mailing list. > But no, the Gentoo developers are always above reproach. This remark is highly inappropriate. > > I'm sorry but the purpose of this thread is not to convince you that > > the problems exist. If you haven't experienced them already, then it > > would be polite of you to either accept them as a fact, or do some > > research yourself. > > > > Your job is not to convince me, personally, but the future reader of > this list. If you have given up on doing so then you have admitted > that you do not want to be held accountable for your actions because > you do not feel you need to explain why you are doing what you are > doing. It is quite ironic that you worry about a 'future reader' needing to be convinced in this past post (presuming you have some infinite knowledge of what kind of details would a 'future reader' consider satisfying) and at the same time you clearly reject to search for any past posts on the topic. Also, I should point out that you don't get to tell me what my job is. If you believe this thread should contain such data, please collect it yourself in your own time and include it in a reply. However, I should point out that you should respect all the rules we're talking about. I'd rather spend the time doing something that is of much greater importance of Gentoo users than some potential decision that will probably no longer be remembered in 12 months, except in snarky comments. > > I understand that you might want to know things. However, it is > > generally impolite if someone 'comes late to the party' and starts > > shouting questions that the existing participants know answers to > > already. This is distorting to the conversation at hand. > > > > I am not shouting. I am politely, but pointedly, asking questions that > you ostensibly should already have the answer to. If you do not have > the answer, then I feel it is clear to future readers of the list that > you are making decisions for nonsensical reasons. I should point out that your personal attacks are also unacceptable. If you disagree with the proposal, then please focus on discussing facts and not trying to prove your opponent's incompetence. > > People's private issues are not topic of this mailing list. It is > > generally impolite and unprofessional to discuss them publicly. Please > > don't do that. > > > > If the messages are being posted to gentoo-dev then I don't see why > you consider the issue private. At least one party intends it to be > public, probably because it's not a personal attack and is related to > Gentoo. One side being unprofessional does not excuse the other from being so. It only causes very unfair 'community judgment' where community judges based on abusive facts of one side where the other side is unable to provide counter-arguments without violating the privacy rules. Please consider that you have exhausted all the time I had available for you. Please do not expect any further answers from me, and give others a fair chance of getting developers' attention. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶06 -0800, użytkownik Matt Turner napisał: > On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list > > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure > > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve > > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were: > > > > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions > > create more noise than leaving the issue as is. > > That's absurd. "We shouldn't enforce rules because people can break the rules" > > > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure > > hate speech that carries no value to anyone]. > > That's absurd. There's no reason to have to tolerate non-constructive > conversation on our own mailing lists. Classify it as off topic. We > tell people their posts are off topic for a particular mailing list > all the time. > > > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people > > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months]. > > That's absurd. You have to look at where the problem starts to fix it, > not engage in whataboutism. > > > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore > > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right > > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't > > really solve the problem because: > > That's absurd. The whole point of bringing problems to ComRel is so > they can solve it. Telling people to deal with it is explicitly not > solving the problem. > > > The Gentoo community (not just the developers) would stand to benefit > from a capable and competent ComRel team. It's very sad that we don't > have that. > > Unfortunately, my experience is much the same as yours. ComRel > explicitly refused to act when a bug reporter was repeatedly abusive, > instead arguing that he didn't do anything wrong and that I shouldn't > be so offended. Even the user disagreed with ComRel, apologizing and > saying that his own behavior was out of line when I confronted him. > That's absurd. I have to formally point out that during this Council's term we haven't had a single complaint about actions (or lack thereof) of ComRel. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
W dniu pon, 04.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶18 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan Ochtman napisał: > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it > > > > be > > > better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators > > > > who > > > move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold > > > the specific posts if necessary? > > > > I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj > > has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did, > > moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low- > > traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well. > > > > Maybe we should move to a more modern list manager? I'm pretty sure mailman > can do this kind of stuff trivially. It feels bad if we have to institute > suboptimal processes due to crappy tooling, if better alternatives are > readily available. > I'm all for it, as long as someone is actually going to do the necessary work within the next, say, 4 weeks. I'd really like to avoid once again having no resolution whatsoever just to wait for never-to-come upgrade. I should point out that this includes: 1. Switch to another mailing list software without breaking stuff. This needs someone from Infra really willing and being able to do it. 2. Establishing a clear policy on how moderation should be performed. Without a clear policy, the effects could be far worse than status quo. 3. Establishing a good and trusted moderators team. Normally I'd say ComRel could do that but given their inability to react within the last year... So, anyone volunteering to do the work? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Re: [gentoo-dev] profiles 17.0 hardened/no-multilib missing?
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> 1) there's barely any use for it, > > Well, I think that whoever use hardened barely use multilib. For the value of one anecdote, I'm a long-time hardened user and all of my hardened systems are no-multilib.
Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it > be > > better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators > who > > move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold > > the specific posts if necessary? > > I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj > has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did, > moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low- > traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well. > Maybe we should move to a more modern list manager? I'm pretty sure mailman can do this kind of stuff trivially. It feels bad if we have to institute suboptimal processes due to crappy tooling, if better alternatives are readily available. Regards, Dirkjan
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote: > A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list: > > There's been research, on this, and the study by harvard business > school was summarized and discussed by NPR in 2015: > > [ Turns out toxic coworkers are more > than just an annoyance. A new study > out of the Harvard Business School > warns that bullying workers are more costly, > even if they are more productive. ] -- NPR description > > https://www.npr.org/2015/12/16/460024322/harvard-business-school-study-highlights-costs-of-toxic-workers > https://goo.gl/g8Ujuk (short URL of the same) > > With gentoo being a non-profit organization, an alternative way to > view it could be the trade-off of seeing developers / maintainers / > staff leave, and any "lost profits" are in the form of community > relations, image, and willingness for ongoing productive work by those > who remain with the gentoo organization. > > Research paper itself (which includes supporting 57 citations) > > http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf > https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same) > > ... and was itself cited a dozen or times: > > https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238 > https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same) > I refer you also to a former Gentoo developer's talk on "A$$holes on your project" ... [1] [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZSli7QW4rg signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Eclasses for BLAS and Lapack
Dear Fellows, and thanks Dominik, Dominik Schmidt writes: > Gentoo does not yet have a (proper) way of selecting a BLAS or Lapack > implementation at compile time. Hence I wrote two eclasses, which can > be found in my fork of the science overlay: > > * https://github.com/Doeme/sci/blob/blas_lapack_eclass/eclass/blas.eclass > * https://github.com/Doeme/sci/blob/blas_lapack_eclass/eclass/lapack.eclass > > [...] The Science Team is very interested in this approach as it solves a fundamental problem of BLAS[1] selection in Gentoo. After the review, we plan to land the 2 eclass-es into Gentoo main repository and start ebuilds migration. Your comments on the implementation are crucial to realize that. Thanks! Benda 1. Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms
[gentoo-dev] Eclasses for BLAS and Lapack
Hi there Gentoo does not yet have a (proper) way of selecting a BLAS or Lapack implementation at compile time. Hence I wrote two eclasses, which can be found in my fork of the science overlay: * https://github.com/Doeme/sci/blob/blas_lapack_eclass/eclass/blas.eclass * https://github.com/Doeme/sci/blob/blas_lapack_eclass/eclass/lapack.eclass They introduce blas_* and lapack_* USE flags. Ebuilds can specify BLAS_COMPAT and LAPACK_COMPAT, deciding what USE flags get added to IUSE and what (conditional) dependencies to DEPEND and RDEPEND. pkgconfig is used to enforce the USE flag selected implementation during compilation. But they do _not_ enforce library consistency at dynamic link time, e.g. when Program A (dynamically) links to BLAS B1 and to Library C, which in turn links to BLAS B2, then executing A will result in symbol clashes and either B1 or B2 will overwrite the others symbols. Dynamic linking consistency has been implemented at some point with a BLAS_USEDEP approach similar to python, i.e. ebuild A propagates a USE constraint to its dependencies via foo-bar/baz[blas_$impl?,blas_$impl2?,...], but there are issues with this. For example, packages might not depend on BLAS themselves but on two libraries which do depend on BLAS. There we would be unable to enforce a consistent implementation down the dependency graph. Also, the complexity for writing ebuilds with this approach explodes, since you have to look up for every package whether they depend on BLAS and, if so, add the ${BLAS_USEDEP} to their USE constraints (and do the same for LAPACK). The current eselect-mechanism would have to be left in place, since we probably want to provide a global default for non-portage built software. Additional discussion on the sci-overlay GitHub issue: https://github.com/gentoo/sci/issues/805 The corresponding bugreport: https://bugs.gentoo.org/632624 Any commentary and improvements would be greatly appreciated. In fact, I do have a question at this point: I'm not sure whether to enforce a particular EAPI or not, and if so, which one. Thank you for your attention, Doeme