Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[R0b0t1]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> 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.
>

You are presupposing they are attacks. If they are public, and on
gentoo-dev, then why would you consider them attacks? Are you the only
person who acts with reason or purpose? How do you determine someone
else is not acting with those things?

> 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.
>

You have now made the issue public by asking that the information be
acted on. If you can not present it publicly, then do not ask anyone
to act on it, and do not hold people to decisions or outcomes made
using the information.

>> But no, the Gentoo developers are always above reproach.
>
> This remark is highly inappropriate.
>

Multiple times I have had polite requests for some explanation of
actions be ignored. In a few of them I can cite behavior that
contradicts itself. What conclusion is left to me save that certain
developers revel in being petty tyrants?

>> > 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.
>

Most people consider evidence and fact-based reasoning satisfying. You
can dispute this if you wish, but I'm not sure how far you will be
able to take it.

> 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.
>

If you do not want to convince people you are right, eventually you
will have to accept a complete lack of credibility.

I do not have such information and now I have learned you are actively
keeping it from me and from everyone else who may be trying to form an
opinion on this matter.

>> > 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.
>

I regret that you see it as a personal attack, but I am simply trying
to tell you how I expect most people will view the situation. You are
asserting you are right with no evidence. No one has any reason to
believe you.

>> > 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 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[R0b0t1]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rich Freeman  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell  wrote:
>>
>> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
>> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
>> incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
>> be dropped or rejected.
>
> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?
>

If you are going to allege misconduct you need to be prepared to prove it.

> Pretty much every organization I've ever been in would quietly show
> such a person the door unless the victim went public with the
> allegations.  Most normal people wouldn't want to be a part of an
> organization that didn't do such a thing.
>
> Apparently though in Gentoo some prefer that the victims of harassment
> have no recourse if the harassment doesn't happen on the gentoo-dev
> mailing list in public.
>
> If you think some cabal is running the show just run for Council.  If
> you win then you get the lucky job of trying to explain all this
> without disclosing the horrible things that some people do in private.
> Of course, lots of people won't believe you, since they profess to be
> innocent and the evidence can't be disclosed without bringing harm to
> a victim or creating the possibility of a defamation lawsuit.
>

Like in the thread about potential piracy issues with ebuilds, people
are being too cautious. For a defamation suit it would be necessary to
prove malicious intent, and then, only in the first circuit.

I'm still waiting for the notice that I can't use Gentoo to
manufacture weapons of mass destruction.

Respectfully,
 R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[R0b0t1]

I apologize for replying to only this message, but #1 stood out and I
am still catching up.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 12:57 PM, 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"

I have read doctoral theses from Harvard, Yale, and others that were
complete trash (they were all copies of an original presentation of a
paper about finger trees; one included code which didn't compile).
Those involved with academia on Freenode have repeatedly warned me not
to trust people based on the institution they work for, nor even to
trust PhD holders about their field of study. This advice has served
me well.

Unfortunately, being politely asked to explain oneself seems to be
grating to a great many people.

> 2) if things don't change, I'll be one of the people to quit.
> 3) gentoo already has documented instances of people leaving.
>

Yes, and from the other end, I see lots of people who hate red tape
and a fear of confrontation that gets in the way of technical
discussion. As far as I can tell, most of the people who feel slighted
feel that way because they choose to interpret someone asking about
the validity of their actions as a personal insult.

Respectfully,
 R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 00:25:46 +0100
Kristian Fiskerstrand  wrote:
>
> One of the primary issues recently is that you keep bringing up old
> matters in a way that is a criticism of Gentoo overall, in various
> channels. We've heard it already, and to keep bringing it up doesn't
> add additional value to the discussion. So again, please reduce the
> volume of such posts.

Most all still exist, plus new ones. Yet noting new is done to address.
Nothing changes for the good. Rather instead keep doubling done on the
old direction which keeps having a destructive impact. Maybe new
people, still learning the same lessons over and over. Old ones still
trying to force things to work the way they have never and will never.

And you get upset when someone is crying a fowl? If you saw something
being neglected and suffering. You would just stand by silently?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


pgp0TNiSymjQB.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:22:34 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr."  wrote:
>
> For the record and reading assumer's. All my actions were in public,
> basically on mailing lists starting with -nfp long ago. All action
> taken against me was in public visible on my developer bug. I have
> never communicated with ComRel former DevRel in private. Or had any
> action taken against me for anything I did in private. It was always
> public.

Sorry correction I have exchange emails, I think IRC short of
confirming via logs with ComRel/DevRel as part of action being taken
against. Any conduct being "punished" was in public. I have no problems
with any punishment interaction I had being made public. It would not be
any different than what is on mailing list or my bug.

Nothing I did privately caused the ball to start rolling. That was
all in public. I think the initial report against me was private

Again sorry I did not want to be lying.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


pgp4gZp8xudFN.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

On 12/06/2017 12:22 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Sorry and no more from me. I just feel given how I am portrayed,
> spoken of, action taken against, etc. I must clarify some things for the
> public record. Which even despite all my actions being in public.
> People still assume because research and thinking for yourself takes
> time. Time I do not expect anyone to expend.

One of the primary issues recently is that you keep bringing up old
matters in a way that is a criticism of Gentoo overall, in various
channels. We've heard it already, and to keep bringing it up doesn't add
additional value to the discussion. So again, please reduce the volume
of such posts.

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:02:01 -0500
Rich Freeman  wrote:
>
> The problem is that with current policies if somebody in Comrel/etc
> had evidence to the contrary they would not be able to refute such a
> denial.  My example wasn't of wltjr specifically (at least not to my
> knowledge), but it just goes to the point of why having these sorts of
> things hashed out on the mailing lists on the first place. 

For the record and reading assumer's. All my actions were in public,
basically on mailing lists starting with -nfp long ago. All action taken
against me was in public visible on my developer bug. I have never
communicated with ComRel former DevRel in private. Or had any action
taken against me for anything I did in private. It was always public.

Any private information regarding me from 08 till today was generated
within Gentoo and does not involve me. If any exists. With the
exception of -core back in the day. Which again is a list, visible to
all devs then.

Sorry and no more from me. I just feel given how I am portrayed,
spoken of, action taken against, etc. I must clarify some things for the
public record. Which even despite all my actions being in public.
People still assume because research and thinking for yourself takes
time. Time I do not expect anyone to expend.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


pgpZwG3wiX646.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand  wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
>>> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
>>> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
>>> tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?
>>
>> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
>> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
>> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
>> information being presented, or they disagree with it.
>>
>
> This whole email thread is actually one of the examples of where split
> lists is a bad thing, the original message was cross-posted between
> gentoo-project and gentoo-dev with a reply-to for gentoo-dev. Resulting
> in split discussions across the lists. The overall discussion should've
> been in -project to begin with.
>

Certainly, though if our lists actually were moderated it would be a
non-issue because all the replies to the off-topic list would have
been deleted.

Mailing lists aren't great for moderation in general though, because
it is impossible to delete a post after it has been distributed.  In a
forum something like this would be easily solved by just moving the
thread to the right place, deleting posts after the fact, and so on.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand  wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
>> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
>> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
>> tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?
>
> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
> information being presented, or they disagree with it.
>

We have had cases where people who were the subject of comrel
complaints about harassment go on to just post endlessly on mailing
lists, sometimes professing that they have no reason why comrel booted
them (despite evidence to the contrary existing).  It just leads to a
one-sided discussion because we don't defend Gentoo's reputation in
these cases so instead our lists just get used to smear us.

I don't have any issue with discussion of facts, or even the offering
of opinion, but the problem is that in these sorts of situations one
side presents their side of the story and nobody is free to counter
with the other side because of policy (and a reasonable policy at
that).  And so the allegations just go unchallenged and are repeatedly
posted.  What value does this add?  At best it misleads people into
thinking that things like comrel actions are unfounded, and drives
away potential contributors.

If these were discussions about policy in the abstract and not in the
specific then there wouldn't be as much difficulty (indeed, this is
the form our disagreement is taking right now).  We can certainly have
a free conversation about whether somebody who sexually harasses
another developer ought to be booted or not.  The problem comes in
when somebody has been the subject of a decision made based on their
individual behavior - there is no way to have a reasonable public
conversation about this.

IMO discussions about individual comrel/etc decisions simply should
not be considered on-topic for our lists.


-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

On 12/05/2017 11:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
>> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
>> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
>> tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?
> 
> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
> information being presented, or they disagree with it.
> 

This whole email thread is actually one of the examples of where split
lists is a bad thing, the original message was cross-posted between
gentoo-project and gentoo-dev with a reply-to for gentoo-dev. Resulting
in split discussions across the lists. The overall discussion should've
been in -project to begin with.

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
 wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:25:21 -0500
> Rich Freeman  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand
>>  wrote:
>> > On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> >
>> >> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses
>> >> other members of the community in private after being told to
>> >> stop, and then acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing
>> >> lists?
>> >
>> > This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
>> > would certainly be a matter for comrel.
>> >
>> What do you do when they keep posting manifestos or whatever on the
>> lists every few months, or generally stirring up the community about
>> how unjustly they're being treated?  When the appeal is to popular
>> opinion, instead of the defined process for handling these appeals?
>
> For readers who may assume. Along the lines of me being kicked. I have
> never ever in my life ever done anything along those lines, nor was
> kicked. What ever Rich is referring to is another person, not me
>

The problem is that with current policies if somebody in Comrel/etc
had evidence to the contrary they would not be able to refute such a
denial.  My example wasn't of wltjr specifically (at least not to my
knowledge), but it just goes to the point of why having these sorts of
things hashed out on the mailing lists on the first place.  At best it
results in damage to reputations and attention drawn to victims (and
perpetrators) of such activities.  At worst it can lead to
escalation/lawsuits/etc.


-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:25:21 -0500
Rich Freeman  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand
>  wrote:
> > On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:  
> >
> >> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses
> >> other members of the community in private after being told to
> >> stop, and then acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing
> >> lists?  
> >
> > This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
> > would certainly be a matter for comrel.
> >  
> What do you do when they keep posting manifestos or whatever on the
> lists every few months, or generally stirring up the community about
> how unjustly they're being treated?  When the appeal is to popular
> opinion, instead of the defined process for handling these appeals?

For readers who may assume. Along the lines of me being kicked. I have
never ever in my life ever done anything along those lines, nor was
kicked. What ever Rich is referring to is another person, not me

I may stir pot, annoy, write backwards, etc. I do not use profanity. I
do not harass people. My actions are all in public. I am not a fan of
private PM. I hated it as a Trustee!

In fact private harassment is why I stepped down as Trustee
Me receiving harassment from members of DevRel
None sexual, still was harassment none the less

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


pgp5436cBD0EY.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
> tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?

We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
"spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
information being presented, or they disagree with it.

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

[kuzetsa]

On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM, Nils Freydank wrote:
> 5. Reasons for warnings and bans
> 
--snip--
> c) spamming, i.e. flooding discussions with lots of messages in a row
> d) constant postings off topic, i.e. disrupting discussions with unrelated 
> questions
>   (constant means more than two times in a row)

Point #c versus #d

#c - there can (and often are) good faith reasons for
multiple postings "in a row", such as when responding
to multiple threads, and/or to multiple posters within
the same thread. Even just people who are awake (and
would respond) at a time when other participants in the
list would be sleeping could complicate this rule.

#d - definition for constant seems unnecessary. For an
alternative, maybe refine the definition to either
use a 72 hour window or similar, or even just a basic
expectation for discussion to be germane (on-topic)
with refusal to stay on-topic (when warned) being the
measure. Perhaps three strikes (per day?) are when
the enforcement could start. parliament / congress
and other formal assemblies have models for this.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand  wrote:
>
> The difference would be that you, in your first example, can demonstrate
> some actual abuse. In the latter case you're talking about differences
> of opinions of how things are run, which quickly turns into censorship.
>

I don't see how any of this can "turn into censorship" - it IS
censorship from the outset.  That is what moderation is.  If the topic
of the list isn't for ranting about how horrible Gentoo is and why
nobody should bother to join the community, then such a post is
off-topic.  We either allow it (in which case we'll continue to have
lots of infighting and a generally toxic environment), or we don't (in
which case we ARE censoring the lists).

Obviously things work more nicely when people censor themselves, but
not everybody does.

Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

On 12/05/2017 11:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand  wrote:
>> On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell  wrote:
 I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
 developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
 incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
 be dropped or rejected.
>>> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
>>> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
>>> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?
>>
>> This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
>> would certainly be a matter for comrel.
>>
> 
> What do you do when they keep posting manifestos or whatever on the
> lists every few months, or generally stirring up the community about
> how unjustly they're being treated?  When the appeal is to popular
> opinion, instead of the defined process for handling these appeals?
> 
> Ultimately it isn't that hard to convince newcomers that Gentoo is
> full of backstabbing when you let people allege that and have the last
> word whenever it fancies them to do so.
> 
> The point of prior restraint is so that our mailing lists don't turn
> into the most negative PR imaginable.
> 

The difference would be that you, in your first example, can demonstrate
some actual abuse. In the latter case you're talking about differences
of opinions of how things are run, which quickly turns into censorship.

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand  wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell  wrote:
>>> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
>>> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
>>> incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
>>> be dropped or rejected.
>> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
>> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
>> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?
>
> This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
> would certainly be a matter for comrel.
>

What do you do when they keep posting manifestos or whatever on the
lists every few months, or generally stirring up the community about
how unjustly they're being treated?  When the appeal is to popular
opinion, instead of the defined process for handling these appeals?

Ultimately it isn't that hard to convince newcomers that Gentoo is
full of backstabbing when you let people allege that and have the last
word whenever it fancies them to do so.

The point of prior restraint is so that our mailing lists don't turn
into the most negative PR imaginable.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell  wrote:
>> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
>> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
>> incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
>> be dropped or rejected.
> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?

This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
would certainly be a matter for comrel.

-- 
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

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moderator ruleset for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org

[Nils Freydank]

Hello everyone,

with regards to the current mailing list (ML) split discussion, and one 
specific message deep down there by mgorny asked for someone providing 
moderator rules, I would like to propose the following ruleset for gentoo-dev 

Right now the situation escalated in a way that forces to actually do 
something and I hope we can recreate an atmosphere where technical 
improvements can happen.

I suggest using a very specific ruleset to give a proper guide to future
moderators and users of the ML in addition to our *existing* Code of 
Conduct[1].

As my personal experience showed me it might be good to add a good alternative
to every expelled bad one, so I added them.

As this is a RFC I’d welcome any discussion about that document.

Proposal


1. Idea and topic of the mailing list

The gentoo-dev mailing follows the main idea of discussing topics that are
part of the development of Gentoo itself. This limits to technical aspects
like eclass improvements, or GLEP development.

Off topic discussions or general user support are not part of this mailing
list and should be held on other, appropriate lists.

2. People or groups allowed to write to gentoo-dev ML
-
Everybody who has the intention to contribute to the discussions according
to the mailing list’s topic has the right to do that after a subscription.

This explicitly excludes off topic discussions, flaming, trolling and verbal
attacks against other people or groups (which are defined under point 5).

On gentoo-dev it also excludes bug reports or support questions. Bug reports
can be filed in the bug tracker, support related questions can be asked on 
other mailing lists, in IRC channels or in the Gentoo related forums.

3. Moderation
-
The moderation team has to consist of at least two developers. The moderators
have to do join the moderation team voluntarily.

Moderators are held to warn authors on the list if they ignore the rules of
this list and ban them for a limited time if they repeat the behaviour that
led to warnings in the first place.

4. Procedure of banning and ban times
-
As banning is a severe interaction it has to be strictly regulated.
When moderators perceive someone ignoring the rules, they have to go
through the following steps:

a) Warn the respective person once pointing out the exact rule
   that was violated.

If the violation continues, moderators have to
b) ban the user for 24h noting this in a direct response the violation.
   That way the violation, ban time and reason are documented.

Every third 24h ban results into
c) a 7 day ban with the same regularities as a 24 hour ban.

d) Every ban has to be notified to ComRel (com...@gentoo.org).

5. Reasons for warnings and bans

The rationale for the whole moderation is to keep the list productive. To
achieve this, some specific actions have to be sanctioned:
a) trolling, i.e. provocation of aggressive reactions
b) attacks, e.g. insulting people or groups
(which does not include proper articulated disagreement)
c) spamming, i.e. flooding discussions with lots of messages in a row
d) constant postings off topic, i.e. disrupting discussions with unrelated 
questions
(constant means more than two times in a row)


6. Preservation of transparency & discussions
-
Maybe the most important aspect for moderation is transparency. To achieve it
the ban is
a) strictly regulated with regards to possible reasons
b) strictly timed,
c) logged via the mailing list archives.

If a warned or banned person thinks the action taken wasn’t correct, this 
issue
might addressed with the moderator in a private discussion first. If there is 
no
conclusion found, the discussion should take place with ComRel as a mediation 
party.

[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct

-- 
GPG fingerprint: '766B 8122 1342 6912 3401 492A 8B54 D7A3 FF3C DB17'
Holgersson

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell  wrote:
>
> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
> incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
> be dropped or rejected.

And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?

Pretty much every organization I've ever been in would quietly show
such a person the door unless the victim went public with the
allegations.  Most normal people wouldn't want to be a part of an
organization that didn't do such a thing.

Apparently though in Gentoo some prefer that the victims of harassment
have no recourse if the harassment doesn't happen on the gentoo-dev
mailing list in public.

If you think some cabal is running the show just run for Council.  If
you win then you get the lucky job of trying to explain all this
without disclosing the horrible things that some people do in private.
Of course, lots of people won't believe you, since they profess to be
innocent and the evidence can't be disclosed without bringing harm to
a victim or creating the possibility of a defamation lawsuit.

Nobody should assume that my example fits any particular person, but
it is certainly one I've heard about in Gentoo's history.  These
things do happen when you have a large enough community.

There are certainly people around here that annoy lots of devs, and
have for years, and yet they're not the ones being banned.  Heck, I
know I annoy plenty of people with lengthy posts, but the stuff that
actually gets people driven out goes way beyond annoyance.

And honestly, in an ideal world we wouldn't be moderating posts based
on who posted them, but simply based on their content.  Posts about
Gentoo development on gentoo-dev can go through, posts that aren't
about such things don't.  It is usually for the sake of manpower that
you whitelist/greylist/blacklist individuals.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Aaron W. Swenson]

On 2017-12-03 00:18, Michał Górny wrote:
> …snip…

I understand, and sympathize with, the motivation to create another list
and restrict gentoo-dev. And, I agree with most of the points,
especially given some of the more recent events.

I still vote no.

gentoo-dev is supposed to be for open discussions on the development of
Gentoo. I’ve come to expect to have some not so pleasant or diplomatic
replies.

Yes, there are a couple individuals that are being awfully noisy, but
the vaster majority are not. By splitting the list, we’re just moving that
noise elsewhere so we can ignore them.

This proposal avoids rather than addresses the problem.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] [checksum] Do not use secure memory for pygcrypt backend

[Zac Medico]

On 12/05/2017 12:00 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Disable using secure memory for pygcrypt backend since we are not
> processing secrets. This can avoid the libgcrypt memory error; however,
> it turned out to be a huge memory/resource leak which needs to be fixed
> independently.
> ---
>  pym/portage/checksum.py | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/pym/portage/checksum.py b/pym/portage/checksum.py
> index 9e7bffea9..4174638e6 100644
> --- a/pym/portage/checksum.py
> +++ b/pym/portage/checksum.py
> @@ -161,7 +161,8 @@ if False:
>  
>   class GCryptHashWrapper(object):
>   def __init__(self, algo):
> - self._obj = 
> pygcrypt.hashcontext.HashContext(algo=algo)
> + self._obj = 
> pygcrypt.hashcontext.HashContext(algo=algo,
> + secure=False)
>  
>   def update(self, data):
>   self._obj.write(data)
> 

Looks good, please merge.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Daniel Campbell]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:59:40AM +, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Daniel Campbell wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:18:04AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I don't think this plan will have the effect you're going for,
> 
> I agree, and I'll double down on my previous comment on this proposal:
> 
> I consider the proposal to be the wrong solution.
> 
> 
> > but let's be honest here: the "RFC" is just a formality; the decision's
> > already been made.
> 
> I hope that a mere proposal doesn't automatically mean policy change.
> 

If proposals come from a select couple of people, there are high odds
that it's been discussed privately and the relevant people've been
convinced or otherwise pushed to implement the change. By the time it
hits the list, any cricitism is met with "too bad, we're doing it
anyway". I'm not sure how new you are to Gentoo, but it's been this way
since at least 2012.

> 
> > If the "real leaders" of Gentoo want to divide and fragment the
> > community, it's their prerogative.
> 
> When there is a request for comments, there should also be comments. :)
> 
> Far too many fall into the simple trap that is tribalism, and I'd like
> to encourage everyone on this list to not be that kind of person,
> because there really is no "us and them", there is only "us".
> 

I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
be dropped or rejected. It will likely be a silent rejection, so the
fallout is minimal. The plan itself is a manifestation of tribalism.
The "us" is a select group of people who've been blessed by mgorny and
friends.  Everyone else is deemed a "do nothing" or some other insult,
regardless of their history or efforts with the distribution. Yes,
talking about that is ugly, but it's the truth. I've been on the
receiving end of it multiple times and have been witness to it many
others. It shows up in just about every corner of Gentoo. Creating a
technical schism won't fix it.

> 
> > As we tell users who do something they're not supposed to: You get
> > to keep the pieces.
> 
> Well, let's see what happens, now that both developers and
> non-developers have clearly spoken out *against* this proposal.
> 

I'm not holding my breath on any positive change, but we'll see. It's
not like we have a choice in the matter. I guess we'll have to subscribe
to yet another mailing list if we want to stay informed. Maybe in a
year's time, we'll have gentoo-dev-expert as well, so the Chosen Ones
don't have to deal with developers they don't like.

This is my last mail in this thread. I've made my points and know they
will fall on deaf ears. You're not wrong in your approach; I don't share
that faith, is all. So I hope you don't interpret this as me yelling at
you.

> 
> Kind regards
> 
> //Peter
> 

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer, Trustee, Treasurer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] [checksum] Disable pygcrypt backend due to breakage

[Brian Dolbec]

On Tue,  5 Dec 2017 18:08:47 +0100
Michał Górny  wrote:

> Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/615620
> ---
>  pym/portage/checksum.py | 6 +-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/pym/portage/checksum.py b/pym/portage/checksum.py
> index 5424ce56b..9e7bffea9 100644
> --- a/pym/portage/checksum.py
> +++ b/pym/portage/checksum.py
> @@ -150,7 +150,11 @@ if "SHA3_256" not in hashfunc_map or "SHA3_512"
> not in hashfunc_map: # (GnuPG).
>  gcrypt_algos = frozenset(('RMD160', 'WHIRLPOOL', 'SHA3_256',
> 'SHA3_512', 'STREEBOG256', 'STREEBOG512'))
> -if gcrypt_algos.difference(hashfunc_map):
> +# Note: currently disabled due to resource exhaustion bugs in
> pygcrypt. +# Please do not reenable until upstream has a fix.
> +# https://bugs.gentoo.org/615620
> +if False:
> +#if gcrypt_algos.difference(hashfunc_map):
>   try:
>   import binascii
>   import pygcrypt.hashcontext

looks good thanks, merge please

-- 
Brian Dolbec 

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] [checksum] Disable pygcrypt backend due to breakage

[Michał Górny]

Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/615620
---
 pym/portage/checksum.py | 6 +-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/pym/portage/checksum.py b/pym/portage/checksum.py
index 5424ce56b..9e7bffea9 100644
--- a/pym/portage/checksum.py
+++ b/pym/portage/checksum.py
@@ -150,7 +150,11 @@ if "SHA3_256" not in hashfunc_map or "SHA3_512" not in 
hashfunc_map:
 # (GnuPG).
 gcrypt_algos = frozenset(('RMD160', 'WHIRLPOOL', 'SHA3_256', 'SHA3_512',
'STREEBOG256', 'STREEBOG512'))
-if gcrypt_algos.difference(hashfunc_map):
+# Note: currently disabled due to resource exhaustion bugs in pygcrypt.
+# Please do not reenable until upstream has a fix.
+# https://bugs.gentoo.org/615620
+if False:
+#if gcrypt_algos.difference(hashfunc_map):
try:
import binascii
import pygcrypt.hashcontext
-- 
2.15.1

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] [checksum] Disable pygcrypt backend due to breakage

[Brian Dolbec]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 08:42:43 -0800
Brian Dolbec  wrote:

> On Tue,  5 Dec 2017 17:34:23 +0100
> Michał Górny  wrote:
> 
> > Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/615620
> > ---
> >  pym/portage/checksum.py | 5 -
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/pym/portage/checksum.py b/pym/portage/checksum.py
> > index 5424ce56b..0841ab231 100644
> > --- a/pym/portage/checksum.py
> > +++ b/pym/portage/checksum.py
> > @@ -150,7 +150,10 @@ if "SHA3_256" not in hashfunc_map or "SHA3_512"
> > not in hashfunc_map: # (GnuPG).
> >  gcrypt_algos = frozenset(('RMD160', 'WHIRLPOOL', 'SHA3_256',
> > 'SHA3_512', 'STREEBOG256', 'STREEBOG512'))
> > -if gcrypt_algos.difference(hashfunc_map):
> > +# Note: currently disabled due to resource exhaustion bugs in
> > pygcrypt. +# Please do not reenable until upstream has a fix.
> > +# https://bugs.gentoo.org/615620
> > +if False and gcrypt_algos.difference(hashfunc_map):
> > try:
> > import binascii
> > import pygcrypt.hashcontext  
> 
> 
> 
> It would be better to just comment out the original if, then add a new
> line to replace it with just if False.  it would be clearer what the
> original code should be.  Of course with the reason comments...
> 

sorry, brain is still struggling with this damn headache...

It would be clearer later when re-enabling if it takes a long time 
for pygrcrypt to get fixed.  I know it would be for me, my memory 
isn't as good as it used to be. Also if it ends up someone else 
looks to modify it later.

+# Note: currently disabled due to resource exhaustion bugs in pygcrypt. 
+# Please do not reenable until upstream has a fix. 
+# https://bugs.gentoo.org/615620 
-if gcrypt_algos.difference(hashfunc_map):
+#if gcrypt_algos.difference(hashfunc_map):
+if False
try:
import binascii
import pygcrypt.hashcontext  


I approve the above form to merge...  Thanks
-- 
Brian Dolbec 

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] [checksum] Disable pygcrypt backend due to breakage

[Michał Górny]

Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/615620
---
 pym/portage/checksum.py | 5 -
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/pym/portage/checksum.py b/pym/portage/checksum.py
index 5424ce56b..0841ab231 100644
--- a/pym/portage/checksum.py
+++ b/pym/portage/checksum.py
@@ -150,7 +150,10 @@ if "SHA3_256" not in hashfunc_map or "SHA3_512" not in 
hashfunc_map:
 # (GnuPG).
 gcrypt_algos = frozenset(('RMD160', 'WHIRLPOOL', 'SHA3_256', 'SHA3_512',
'STREEBOG256', 'STREEBOG512'))
-if gcrypt_algos.difference(hashfunc_map):
+# Note: currently disabled due to resource exhaustion bugs in pygcrypt.
+# Please do not reenable until upstream has a fix.
+# https://bugs.gentoo.org/615620
+if False and gcrypt_algos.difference(hashfunc_map):
try:
import binascii
import pygcrypt.hashcontext
-- 
2.15.1

Re: Accidental spoofing -> Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[Aaron W. Swenson]

On 2017-12-05 10:51, Georg Rudoy wrote:
> From and Reply-To are two separate fields.

Yes, but that wasn’t what was being discussed. I was giving an example
as to why the From field should be editable in an email client.

I’ll set the Reply-To for emails to be directed to the proper contact
point, but it’s nonsensical to say it’s coming from a human point of
contact when it’s an “automated” message.

The Reply-To still wouldn’t be m...@example.com either. Rather, it’d be set to
customer-serv...@example.com, or whatever it needs to be. donotreply is
a succinct way of communicating that the recipient doesn’t or shouldn’t
have to reply to the email and that it’s an automated email.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Accidental spoofing -> Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[Georg Rudoy]

On 05.12.17 at 15:14 user Aaron W. Swenson  wrote:
> One reason is to send from a nonexistent account to avoid getting
> replies in the first place.

>From and Reply-To are two separate fields.

But that, of course, depends on the way bans are implemented in the
maillist management software.


-- 
  Georg Rudoy

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dead x11-plugins/wm* dockapps

[Bernard Cafarelli]

# Bernard Cafarelli  (05 Dec 2017)
# Dead Window Maker dockapps, dead upstreams and download links
# (no release for more than 10 years)
# Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #639914
x11-plugins/monto
x11-plugins/wmbluecpu
x11-plugins/wmcpu
x11-plugins/wmdate
x11-plugins/wmdf
x11-plugins/wmdl
x11-plugins/wmjsql
x11-plugins/wmlpq
x11-plugins/wmmemfree
x11-plugins/wmmemmon
x11-plugins/wmmldonkey
x11-plugins/wmmsg
x11-plugins/wmnetselect
x11-plugins/wmpiki
x11-plugins/wmsound
x11-plugins/wmsvencd
x11-plugins/wmsysmon
x11-plugins/wmupmon
x11-plugins/wmwave

-- 
Bernard Cafarelli (Voyageur)
Gentoo developer

Re: Accidental spoofing -> Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[Aaron W. Swenson]

On 2017-12-04 18:08, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> 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.

One reason is to send from a nonexistent account to avoid getting
replies in the first place.

Like donotre...@example.com for order updates, confirmation emails, and
so on. A person doesn’t actually exist behind the email, but emails have
to say they’re coming from somewhere. And, a properly setup SMTP server
will need an credentials to send those email. If donotreply doesn’t
exist, then the account setup will (probably) have an email address that
differs from the one that’s used to compose the email.

I use it myself when I need to inform our customers about a change. I
don’t want to field hundreds of email personally, so I change the from
address.

So, email clients most definitely should allow an individual to change
the from field. It’s a good thing. But, like any other tool, it can be
used improperly.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Nils Freydank]

Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2017, 18:02:21 CET schrieb Michał Górny:
> 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:
> [...]
> 
> 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:
> [...]
> 2. Establishing a clear policy on how moderation should be performed.
> Without a clear policy, the effects could be far worse than status quo.
I’m working on a draft for a ruleset and will send it to the list (as a new 
thread). However, this may take until the end of this week.

> 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?
I would do it, but IMHO it’s inappropriate if I would do that as a non-dev/
normal user.

-- 
GPG fingerprint: '766B 8122 1342 6912 3401 492A 8B54 D7A3 FF3C DB17'
Holgersson

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Peter Stuge]

Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:18:04AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I don't think this plan will have the effect you're going for,

I agree, and I'll double down on my previous comment on this proposal:

I consider the proposal to be the wrong solution.


> but let's be honest here: the "RFC" is just a formality; the decision's
> already been made.

I hope that a mere proposal doesn't automatically mean policy change.


> If the "real leaders" of Gentoo want to divide and fragment the
> community, it's their prerogative.

When there is a request for comments, there should also be comments. :)

Far too many fall into the simple trap that is tribalism, and I'd like
to encourage everyone on this list to not be that kind of person,
because there really is no "us and them", there is only "us".


> As we tell users who do something they're not supposed to: You get
> to keep the pieces.

Well, let's see what happens, now that both developers and
non-developers have clearly spoken out *against* this proposal.


Kind regards

//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[Peter Stuge]

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> No one questions why I stepped down.

I have wondered what happened, but haven't felt able to investigate.

Please know that I wouldn't take sides without investigating, and I
think that an overwhelming majority is also like that. A problem is
that you'll only ever hear from those who do take sides, but I think
the vast majority doesn't.

In the end I think giving up any position comes down to one of two things:
either feeling that one can not sufficiently meet expectations, or feeling
that others do not meet one's own expectations. I've experienced both.

How those happen is probably always a sad story of personal differences. :\


> 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

I hope that everyone always learns. I think almost everyone does.


William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > doing whatever you did to get banned from  GitHub
> 
> You tell me does this make any sense to ban someone from Gentoo's Github?
> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/1721#issuecomment-300178677

It doesn't make sense to me, because you're trying to help inform a
community contributor. But I also don't know any of the "Gentoo Java"
context - which I think also matters.

Reading the motivation for the ban "not the place to post comments and
recount how Gentoo Java is struggling with its staffing needs" and
"GitHub ..  [is] for code-centric feedback and technical discussions,
not about Gentoo-meta issues or the like" I can understand that someone
would feel that your comment was out of place, but I don't think that
a 14 day ban is an appropriate first response.

That said, expectations were clearly not met, all around.

The expectations of the community contributor were not met by Gentoo,
since (as is mentioned in the ban mail) Gentoo is not a typical GitHub
project, where a PR is the entire process into the repo. I think it is
perfectly fine to communicate about this in a PR, and I think a Gentoo
policy never to do so is a mistake.

The expectations of the Gentoo GitHub Project were not met by you,
since it seems a PR policy is "Everyone can review pull requests. 
However, please make sure that your comments are correct and on
topic." and your comment was also trying to inform about the larger
context, not strictly limited to technical details.

I personally disagree with such expectations in the GitHub team, but I
can't even be bothered to become a proper Gentoo developer, because the
threshold is just too high for me.


I would attribute the contributor's (very valid) disappointment to lack
of communication, ie. to Gentoo not having set accurate expectations.
It is probably true that Gentoo isn't equipped to do so at the moment,
so everyone has to learn on their own. Some will get burnt in the process. :\


> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/6033
> I felt I should have responded to not be rude.

I agree with you, and you seem to always respond politely. While I
sometimes find it a bit difficult to understand what you intend to
say because of your writing style, it looks to me like you always
intend to equip others with useful information.


> I still do not respond in kind to others.

I think that shows good character. Please keep that up, no matter what
others do.


To the actual topic of Gentoo Java I think the best you can do is
essentially what you are already doing - work on solving your own
problems in your own overlay, if there is a kind of informal team
working mostly to provide life support. You can try to support them,
but you may have very different needs, and if communication doesn't
work so well then there can't be an actual team.

I rarely use Java, but what I do know about Java supports your
argument that Gentoo could need a lot of work for JDK 9, because
the expectations/assumptions of the Java ecosystem are quite far
apart from those of the Gentoo ecosystem, and if a great solution
is even achievable at all then it certainly requires mastering both
Java and Gentoo, which likely requires Java people to get into Gentoo
rather than the other way around, and both environments have long
learning curves, and until there is a critical mass of developers
mastering both, there can't really be a team. :\


Kind regards

//Peter