Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Tuesday 19 August 2008, Mark Loeser wrote: > I am not sure how we would be able to enforce this across the board > for forcefully retired developers. If we are talking policies, can someone please define the term 'forecefully retired'? What about people whom had been complained about to devrel, and who then resigned? Does it include people who are retired due to inactivity? What benifit does this proposal have over an enforcement of the CoC on retired developers? If they choose to stay part of our community, any misbehaviour can also be penalized using that document. If they choose to stay and contribute properly, why ban them? I'm happy about all bugs I get, even by the most evil compile persons. Robert signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Tobias Scherbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Mark Loeser wrote: > > I personally don't see why they should be allowed to stay part of our > > communication channels where they have caused problems bad enough to get > > them retired. With that being said, I think the same technical issues > > come into play here as with banning someone from "Gentoo" entirely. > > I agree on this. I'd limit this ban to channels where they have caused > problems though (or channels which they've been taking part of), banning > them on each and every #gentoo-* channel is just an unnecessary overhead > imho. And for the given technical restrictions they'd be banned as > suggested, when they are coming back using another IP or another nick > the same rules would apply as for every other user - warning and ban if > they're misbehaving. > > > I am not sure how we would be able to enforce this across the board for > > forcefully retired developers. > > It's not really possible without some huge work overhead to fully ban > someone - therefore given limitations as described above would apply. > Everything else is not doable from my pov. > > Tobias > Although it isn't feasible in practice, such a policy would allow us to defenestrate forcefully retired developers that keep coming back to mailing lists or channels with the same attitude that got then kicked, without having to resort to long process and waste of our human resources. We wouldn't have to go through the same process over and over again: if somebody was retired and keeps doing the same things as when was a developer, then people in charge of channels or mailing lists might take instant action as they find it necessary. If they get a new attitude after retired, I'm sure that the people in charge will not take the extra work to ban them for nothing. My R$ 0.02. Pilla
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
Mark Loeser wrote: > Lukasz Damentko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > 1. I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our [...] > Due to their privacy policy I don't think we'll ever be able to get > adequate explanations from Freenode staff when our devs are banned. I think that's a limitation which will also applies to other IRC networks, therefore we have to live with that limitation or run our own IRC network. I can't say that I prefer the latter one ... we're a quite good in running our distribution - but would we be also that good in running our own IRC network? I guess not ... > > 2. I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where [...] > If for some reason a developer was unable to attend a meeting due to > being klined or the internet being FUBAR'd, I know that I have my IM > details available in LDAP for that dev to be able to contact me, or they > could send the entire council an email. I don't think setting up our own > IRC server is worth the trouble for this small purpose. +1 on that > > 3. I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org [...] > I like this idea. again +1 on that > spb rose some concerns in the meeting with regards to > some users thinking that if they came onto irc.gentoo.org and joined #java > that it would be a Gentoo java channel, but it doesn't seem like > Freenode considers this to be much of a problem. For evidence of this: > http://freenode.net/acknowledgements.shtml > > They thank projects for pointing their domains to them, so I believe > that the network as a whole shouldn't have a problem with this. If > someone thinks I'm misunderstanding what they mean on that page, please > let me know. Given the fact that the concern spb raised in the meeting is a non-problem, at least until Freenode changes its policy in that aspect, i see no problem with pointing irc.g.o to irc.freenode.net. Plus irc.g.o. in some way points to Freenode servers already irc.gentoo.org canonical name = irc.osuosl.org. irc.osuosl.org is an A record for 140.211.166.3 and 140.211.166.4 which are both Freenode boxes. Tobias signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
Mark Loeser wrote: > I personally don't see why they should be allowed to stay part of our > communication channels where they have caused problems bad enough to get > them retired. With that being said, I think the same technical issues > come into play here as with banning someone from "Gentoo" entirely. I agree on this. I'd limit this ban to channels where they have caused problems though (or channels which they've been taking part of), banning them on each and every #gentoo-* channel is just an unnecessary overhead imho. And for the given technical restrictions they'd be banned as suggested, when they are coming back using another IP or another nick the same rules would apply as for every other user - warning and ban if they're misbehaving. > I am not sure how we would be able to enforce this across the board for > forcefully retired developers. It's not really possible without some huge work overhead to fully ban someone - therefore given limitations as described above would apply. Everything else is not doable from my pov. Tobias signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
Ben de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > 2) Continued presence of forcefully retired devs > It really baffles me that some developers are forcefully retired for > anti-social behavior, but are not consequently banned from the places > where they display this behavior, such as our MLs and IRC channels. What > good is it to retire developers, but allow them to continue to be > disruptive? I would like the Council to decide for a change in our > policy on this point. I personally don't see why they should be allowed to stay part of our communication channels where they have caused problems bad enough to get them retired. With that being said, I think the same technical issues come into play here as with banning someone from "Gentoo" entirely. I am not sure how we would be able to enforce this across the board for forcefully retired developers. -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com pgpvsdKcZDfkV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
Lukasz Damentko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Fair enough. Let me wrap up the IRC part. > > 1. I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our > developer being banned from Freenode without providing us with a > reason. The situation looks like one of Freenode staffers overreacted > over something Chris said during previous Council meeting and banned > him to prevent him from attending next meetings when he was supposed > to provide more information on the CoC topic. The ban was removed > after an hour, but they still refuse to provide us with reasons for it > which looks like (mostly because we weren't shown any sane > justification for the ban) a cover up operation. It would be good if > Council officially protested against that ban and demanded a detailed > explanation from Freenode staff. Due to their privacy policy I don't think we'll ever be able to get adequate explanations from Freenode staff when our devs are banned. > 2. I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where > third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who can't. > Like our own small and created just for this purpose IRC server. A > situation when a third party may disallow our developer from attending > a meeting without even telling us why isn't the healthiest one. We > should be independent from such decisions of third parties so they > can't politically influence Council decisions by removing people who > are inconvenient for them. Now when it (most probably) happened once, > we have no other choice but to believe it's possible it will happen > again. If for some reason a developer was unable to attend a meeting due to being klined or the internet being FUBAR'd, I know that I have my IM details available in LDAP for that dev to be able to contact me, or they could send the entire council an email. I don't think setting up our own IRC server is worth the trouble for this small purpose. > 3. I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org alias > instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so on. The > alias would allow us to move out of the network more easily should we > ever decide to do so. Debian did exactly the same a couple of months > ago prior to them moving out to OFTC > (http://www.debian.org/News/2006/20060604) so maybe it would be a > good idea to have this for Gentoo too. Infra (Shyam Mani) say it isn't > a problem at all to create and maintain it, we in fact already have > something like this pointing at Freenode, it would be just a question > of updating that alias and updating our docs with it. It would > increase our independence from Freenode and make future network > switching much easier should we ever decide it's time to part our ways > with our current IRC service provider. I like this idea. spb rose some concerns in the meeting with regards to some users thinking that if they came onto irc.gentoo.org and joined #java that it would be a Gentoo java channel, but it doesn't seem like Freenode considers this to be much of a problem. For evidence of this: http://freenode.net/acknowledgements.shtml They thank projects for pointing their domains to them, so I believe that the network as a whole shouldn't have a problem with this. If someone thinks I'm misunderstanding what they mean on that page, please let me know. Thanks, -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com pgpuLxRnl25xF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
David Leverton wrote: > 2008/8/14 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Why aren't fired developers banned from the channels where they >>> displayed this behavior? > > Isn't this one effectively withdrawn? I asked yngwin which devs he > was referring to, and he said there weren't any, so is there anything > left to discuss? I'll repeat on-list what I said on IRC: That's not what I said. So either you misunderstood, or you are twisting my words. What I want is a decision as to policy. I think it would be unhelpful to make this a discussion about individual cases. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
2008/8/14 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Why aren't fired developers banned from the channels where they >> displayed this behavior? Isn't this one effectively withdrawn? I asked yngwin which devs he was referring to, and he said there weren't any, so is there anything left to discuss?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On 03:01 Thu 14 Aug , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Here's a rough agenda. I'll hash it out a bit more a few hours in > advance of the meeting. Basically, council members haven't responded to > these items on the mailing list, and that's what needs to happen. For all of the items below, here's what I suggest we do at the meeting: - Collect any questions/opinions. Don't discuss them here, do that on-list. - Commit to the dates you'll respond to the threads - Should be in the next week, preferably sooner - The assumption is that if you don't respond by then, you're ready to make a decision and have nothing new to add to the discussion > Reactions to dev banned from freenode > Moving meetings to a location we control > Favor irc.gentoo.org alias in docs, etc > Why aren't fired developers banned from the channels where they > displayed this behavior? > PMS as a draft standard of EAPI 0 -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgpPAYwYpfI37.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On 03:01 Thu 14 Aug , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 23:17 Thu 31 Jul , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd/4th > > Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ > > irc.freenode.net) ! > > > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote > > on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev > > list to see. > > Here's a rough agenda. I'll hash it out a bit more a few hours in > advance of the meeting. Basically, council members haven't responded to > these items on the mailing list, and that's what needs to happen. > > Ferris, I didn't list the CoC enforcement topic because as you suggest, > there are lots of open questions. Perhaps we can spice up the thread on > -council again. Also: I opened bugs assigned to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for all the open issues that aren't part of this agenda. These bugs are for tracking status, _not_ for discussion, so please respect that. Please let me know if there's any topics I forgot. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgpU2cDXYTJMJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On 23:17 Thu 31 Jul , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd/4th > Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ > irc.freenode.net) ! > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote > on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev > list to see. Here's a rough agenda. I'll hash it out a bit more a few hours in advance of the meeting. Basically, council members haven't responded to these items on the mailing list, and that's what needs to happen. Ferris, I didn't list the CoC enforcement topic because as you suggest, there are lots of open questions. Perhaps we can spice up the thread on -council again. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com New topics == Reactions to dev banned from freenode - rane: I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our developer being banned from Freenode without providing us with a reason. ... It would be good if Council officially protested against that ban and demanded a detailed explanation from Freenode staff. Moving meetings to a location we control rane: I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who can't. Like our own small and created just for this purpose IRC server. Favor irc.gentoo.org alias in docs, etc --- rane: I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org alias instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so on. The alias would allow us to move out of the network more easily should we ever decide to do so. Why aren't fired developers banned from the channels where they displayed this behavior? --- yngwin: It really baffles me that some developers are forcefully retired for anti-social behavior, but are not consequently banned from the places where they display this behavior, such as our MLs and IRC channels. What good is it to retire developers, but allow them to continue to be disruptive? I would like the Council to decide for a change in our policy on this point. PMS as a draft standard of EAPI 0 - spb: It should be treated as a draft standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo tree or package managers should have a bug filed against either the deviator or PMS to resolve the differences. Alternatively, what (specific) changes are required to PMS before such a statement can be made? pgpMBLg7UHR5t.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On 14:12 Fri 01 Aug , Ferris McCormick wrote: > Required ethical disclaimer: I provide this only for information. It > is not a legal opinion, nor am I qualified to give a legal opinion on > international privacy laws. I will go so far as to say that the > Freenode privacy statement looks as if it was drafted by a lawyer to > ensure Freenode's users that (to quote): > "PDPC will not publish that information or provide it to any other third > party without your explicit permission, except as required by law or as > appropriate in the course of an investigation of criminal wrongdoing. > PDPC will make a good faith effort to maintain the privacy of your > personal information." > Thus they are exposed to a law suit if they provide the information I > think you are asking for. > (Privacy policy at: http://freenode.net/group_privacy.shtml ) The only thing I have to add to this is the missing context. This policy applies only to contact information: "PDPC may provide your personal or group contact information to its volunteers, employees or contractors, solely to allow them to contact you on its behalf or to verify the accuracy of the group or personal information you provide. PDPC will not publish that information or provide it to any other third party without your explicit permission, except as required by law or as appropriate in the course of an investigation of criminal wrongdoing. PDPC will make a good faith effort to maintain the privacy of your personal information. " -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgpgsH7O1ejCa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:06 AM, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote >>> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev >>> list to see. >> >> I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the Council's >> consideration: >> >> "While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably >> close approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0. >> Given this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible on a >> timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as a draft >> standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo tree or >> package managers should have a bug filed against either the deviator >> or PMS to resolve the differences. > > [...] > > Is there some reason why this needs to be stated explicity (eg. are > you having difficulty getting things fixed in the tree?) > Currently it can't be referenced from other official documentation. There's already one GLEP which had to get references to PMS removed because of this. And it will become a bigger problem when we have more EAPIs and we can't rely on any spec except short summaries posted to @dev-announce. Regards, -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Chrissy Fullam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It could be a good precedent without being policy, or dependent upon the > reason for being forcibly removed perhaps. It is quite possible for someone > to find another way to contribute without having developer status, a > necessary role that they find to be their niche. Bonsaikitten is one such > person, he was forcibly retired about 2 years ago but is a positive > contributor via Gentoo ops. Not only via Gentoo ops, but also by being the second-largest contributor of infrastructure (after gentoo's Infra ;) for devs and non-devs alike. His hardware currently hosts a number of things such as pkgcore.org, dev.gentooexperimental.org (used for various gentoo-related experiments), and soc.gentooexperimental.org (gentoo-soc project management). -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan
RE: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
> 2) Continued presence of forcefully retired devs It really baffles me that > some developers are forcefully retired for anti-social behavior, but are > not consequently banned from the places where they display this behavior, > such as our MLs and IRC channels. What good is it to retire developers, > but allow them to continue to be disruptive? I would like the Council to > decide for a change in our policy on this point. It could be a good precedent without being policy, or dependent upon the reason for being forcibly removed perhaps. It is quite possible for someone to find another way to contribute without having developer status, a necessary role that they find to be their niche. Bonsaikitten is one such person, he was forcibly retired about 2 years ago but is a positive contributor via Gentoo ops. Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
Alexis Ballier wrote: > Somehow I read the sentence differently: it seems pointless to ban > competent people for so-called anti-social behavior from easily > pushing technical contributions and still let them contribute to other > communication medias where such an anti-social behavior is much more > obvious. > > Nowhere have I seen any accusation in Ben's mail, keep cool ;) > > Alexis. That's exactly what I meant. Thanks, Alexis! Ben signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 20:55:02 +0100 David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 05 August 2008 20:45:33 Ben de Groot wrote: > > It really baffles me that some developers are forcefully retired for > > anti-social behavior, but are not consequently banned from the > > places where they display this behavior, such as our MLs and IRC > > channels. > > I'm not aware of any ex-developers who were forcefully retired and > who display anti-social behaviour. Please explain, giving concrete > examples of such behaviour and reasons why you think it qualifies as > "anti-social". Somehow I read the sentence differently: it seems pointless to ban competent people for so-called anti-social behavior from easily pushing technical contributions and still let them contribute to other communication medias where such an anti-social behavior is much more obvious. Nowhere have I seen any accusation in Ben's mail, keep cool ;) Alexis. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Tuesday 05 August 2008 20:45:33 Ben de Groot wrote: > It really baffles me that some developers are forcefully retired for > anti-social behavior, but are not consequently banned from the places > where they display this behavior, such as our MLs and IRC channels. I'm not aware of any ex-developers who were forcefully retired and who display anti-social behaviour. Please explain, giving concrete examples of such behaviour and reasons why you think it qualifies as "anti-social".
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
Lukasz Damentko wrote: > Fair enough. Let me wrap up the IRC part. > > 1. I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our > developer being banned from Freenode without providing us with a > reason. The situation looks like one of Freenode staffers overreacted > over something Chris said during previous Council meeting and banned > him to prevent him from attending next meetings when he was supposed > to provide more information on the CoC topic. The ban was removed > after an hour, but they still refuse to provide us with reasons for it > which looks like (mostly because we weren't shown any sane > justification for the ban) a cover up operation. It would be good if > Council officially protested against that ban and demanded a detailed > explanation from Freenode staff. > > 2. I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where > third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who can't. > Like our own small and created just for this purpose IRC server. A > situation when a third party may disallow our developer from attending > a meeting without even telling us why isn't the healthiest one. We > should be independent from such decisions of third parties so they > can't politically influence Council decisions by removing people who > are inconvenient for them. Now when it (most probably) happened once, > we have no other choice but to believe it's possible it will happen > again. > > 3. I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org alias > instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so on. The > alias would allow us to move out of the network more easily should we > ever decide to do so. Debian did exactly the same a couple of months > ago prior to them moving out to OFTC > (http://www.debian.org/News/2006/20060604) so maybe it would be a > good idea to have this for Gentoo too. Infra (Shyam Mani) say it isn't > a problem at all to create and maintain it, we in fact already have > something like this pointing at Freenode, it would be just a question > of updating that alias and updating our docs with it. It would > increase our independence from Freenode and make future network > switching much easier should we ever decide it's time to part our ways > with our current IRC service provider. > > The intention behind all three items is to increase our independence > from our IRC service provider. > > Kind regards, > > Lukasz Damentko > > 1) IRC I second all the points made above. And I want to add another reason for considering to move away from Freenode: we have been waiting for ages to get more/new Group Contacts, but Freenode has been unable to help us, being severely understaffed and backlogged. We should not have to rely on just one person being a Group Contact for Gentoo. 2) Continued presence of forcefully retired devs It really baffles me that some developers are forcefully retired for anti-social behavior, but are not consequently banned from the places where they display this behavior, such as our MLs and IRC channels. What good is it to retire developers, but allow them to continue to be disruptive? I would like the Council to decide for a change in our policy on this point. Regards, Ben de Groot signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RE: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I'm a maintainer and I'll say right out that I won't fix things > > >> unless they make sense to me; regardless of what some council says. > > > > > > Then I'd imagine devrel would have to step in. > > > > I highly doubt that would happen unless they want to risk alienating a > > group of active, useful developers over a disagreement over an ebuild > > format. > > So you're saying that devrel shouldn't and won't step in if developers > refuse to go along with a council decision? This centers around development and sounds like a QA issue first and foremost. QA has a strong relationship with devrel and would undoubtedly speak with devrel if they felt there was a QA violation that required devrel intervention/review for any particular developer. I believe this should address most questions: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0048.html > > There's a reason why Donnie pushed for having all Council agendas > > publicly discussed on the gentoo-dev ML before they are given a formal > > "stamp of approval" so that the ones deciding what gets in are the > > ones who are actually going to use it. > > Except for council decisions involving having devrel fire people, of > course. You may not be aware, but those are discussed in private on a > different IRC network to stop those evil Freenode people who don't > actually have any powers on Freenode from eavesdropping on secret > conversations using the backdoor they placed in the code they didn't > actually write. Please leave the dragging devrel and council through the mud discussions out of this as all you are doing is promoting further derailing of the discussion. Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 23:37:36 +0530 "Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Ciaran McCreesh > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:50:51 -0700 > > "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm a maintainer and I'll say right out that I won't fix things > >> unless they make sense to me; regardless of what some council says. > > > > Then I'd imagine devrel would have to step in. > > I highly doubt that would happen unless they want to risk alienating a > group of active, useful developers over a disagreement over an ebuild > format. So you're saying that devrel shouldn't and won't step in if developers refuse to go along with a council decision? > There's a reason why Donnie pushed for having all Council agendas > publicly discussed on the gentoo-dev ML before they are given a formal > "stamp of approval" so that the ones deciding what gets in are the > ones who are actually going to use it. Except for council decisions involving having devrel fire people, of course. You may not be aware, but those are discussed in private on a different IRC network to stop those evil Freenode people who don't actually have any powers on Freenode from eavesdropping on secret conversations using the backdoor they placed in the code they didn't actually write. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:50:51 -0700 > "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm a maintainer and I'll say right out that I won't fix things unless >> they make sense to me; regardless of what some council says. > > Then I'd imagine devrel would have to step in. I highly doubt that would happen unless they want to risk alienating a group of active, useful developers over a disagreement over an ebuild format. In this case, antarus being one of the admins of gentoo-soc in a year where projects are coming along far better than the previous years. There's a reason why Donnie pushed for having all Council agendas publicly discussed on the gentoo-dev ML before they are given a formal "stamp of approval" so that the ones deciding what gets in are the ones who are actually going to use it. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:50:51 -0700 "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm a maintainer and I'll say right out that I won't fix things unless > they make sense to me; regardless of what some council says. Then I'd imagine devrel would have to step in. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:16:25 -0700 > "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So assuming the council says we should fix all these issues (and in >> most cases I would support that assertion) >> who would fix them? The maintainer is obviously hostile and I doubt >> the council is going to *force* them to accept said >> patches. Is QA going to fix these bugs? > > If PMS has official standing, the maintainer will. > I'm a maintainer and I'll say right out that I won't fix things unless they make sense to me; regardless of what some council says. That being said if people provide patches and/or commit said patches; more power to them. My point still stands that you cannot force these maintainers who disagree with a change to suddenly make them; you either need to convince them that the changes are correct and proper or you need to find another willing group to make said changes. >> > Also, some developers seem quite happy making changes to Portage >> > that break existing packages that rely upon behaviour as defined by >> > PMS, under the assertion that "PMS is too much like a rulebook"... >> >> Also some developers seem quite happy making changes to PMS that break >> existing packages >> that rely upon behavior as defined by Portage; under the assertion >> that "Portage is a broken/buggy piece of software" > > Only in cases where Portage's behaviour is unspecifiable. > >> That being said you are free to chat to Zac about the changes; I doubt >> you can compel him to comply with PMS >> 100% unless this is driven by developers themselves. He (not unlike >> me) is kind of a pragmatic fellow. > > Please explain how deliberately and knowingly breaking existing ebuilds > without bothering to work out the consequences, and refusing to fix it > with the hope that no-one will notice is pragmatic. > > -- > Ciaran McCreesh >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Tuesday 05 August 2008 16:16:25 Alec Warner wrote: > That being said you are free to chat to Zac about the changes We've already spoken to him about the changes several times, and it's quite clear that he either can't or won't understand why it's bad to make incompatible changes without thinking of the consequences or telling anyone else who might be affected, leaving them to find out months later when their users complain about their systems being broken by an ebuild that relies the secret new behaviour. He didn't even give an explanation of why the change is needed; just that it's more consistent, which is true but certainly not a valid reason to break things, and that he "didn't consider it to be especially noteworthy", indicating that he should perhaps start thinking things through more carefully in the future.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:16:25 -0700 "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So assuming the council says we should fix all these issues (and in > most cases I would support that assertion) > who would fix them? The maintainer is obviously hostile and I doubt > the council is going to *force* them to accept said > patches. Is QA going to fix these bugs? If PMS has official standing, the maintainer will. > > Also, some developers seem quite happy making changes to Portage > > that break existing packages that rely upon behaviour as defined by > > PMS, under the assertion that "PMS is too much like a rulebook"... > > Also some developers seem quite happy making changes to PMS that break > existing packages > that rely upon behavior as defined by Portage; under the assertion > that "Portage is a broken/buggy piece of software" Only in cases where Portage's behaviour is unspecifiable. > That being said you are free to chat to Zac about the changes; I doubt > you can compel him to comply with PMS > 100% unless this is driven by developers themselves. He (not unlike > me) is kind of a pragmatic fellow. Please explain how deliberately and knowingly breaking existing ebuilds without bothering to work out the consequences, and refusing to fix it with the hope that no-one will notice is pragmatic. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:06:11 -0700 > "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Bennett >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the >> > Council's consideration: >> > >> > "While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably >> > close approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0. >> > Given this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible >> > on a timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as >> > a draft standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo >> > tree or package managers should have a bug filed against either the >> > deviator or PMS to resolve the differences. >> >> Is this not already the status quo? Surely a number of bugs in the >> tree have already been fixed in this manner. > > Currently some developers are quite happy to fix issues, whilst others > prefer to yell "Portage is the only supported package manager and if it > works for me with Portage you can go to hell"... So assuming the council says we should fix all these issues (and in most cases I would support that assertion) who would fix them? The maintainer is obviously hostile and I doubt the council is going to *force* them to accept said patches. Is QA going to fix these bugs? > > Also, some developers seem quite happy making changes to Portage that > break existing packages that rely upon behaviour as defined by PMS, > under the assertion that "PMS is too much like a rulebook"... Also some developers seem quite happy making changes to PMS that break existing packages that rely upon behavior as defined by Portage; under the assertion that "Portage is a broken/buggy piece of software" That being said you are free to chat to Zac about the changes; I doubt you can compel him to comply with PMS 100% unless this is driven by developers themselves. He (not unlike me) is kind of a pragmatic fellow. -Alec > > -- > Ciaran McCreesh >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:06:11 -0700 "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Bennett > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the > > Council's consideration: > > > > "While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably > > close approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0. > > Given this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible > > on a timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as > > a draft standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo > > tree or package managers should have a bug filed against either the > > deviator or PMS to resolve the differences. > > Is this not already the status quo? Surely a number of bugs in the > tree have already been fixed in this manner. Currently some developers are quite happy to fix issues, whilst others prefer to yell "Portage is the only supported package manager and if it works for me with Portage you can go to hell"... Also, some developers seem quite happy making changes to Portage that break existing packages that rely upon behaviour as defined by PMS, under the assertion that "PMS is too much like a rulebook"... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote >> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev >> list to see. > > I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the Council's > consideration: > > "While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably > close approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0. > Given this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible on a > timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as a draft > standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo tree or > package managers should have a bug filed against either the deviator > or PMS to resolve the differences. Is this not already the status quo? Surely a number of bugs in the tree have already been fixed in this manner. Is there some reason why this needs to be stated explicity (eg. are you having difficulty getting things fixed in the tree?) -Alec > > "On the differences between EAPI 0 and EAPI 1, a much smaller topic, > it is complete and can stand as a full specification" > > Alternatively, what (specific) changes are required to PMS before such > a statement can be made? > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote > on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev > list to see. I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the Council's consideration: "While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably close approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0. Given this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible on a timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as a draft standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo tree or package managers should have a bug filed against either the deviator or PMS to resolve the differences. "On the differences between EAPI 0 and EAPI 1, a much smaller topic, it is complete and can stand as a full specification" Alternatively, what (specific) changes are required to PMS before such a statement can be made?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
Hi, For clarity, I am tomaw, a member of freenode staff. For even more clarity, I am a member of OFTC staff, although that's not relevant to this posting. I have spent many hours discussing this issue with Chrissy and others and feel some points require clarification. On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:39:41 -0700 "Chrissy Fullam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Fair enough. Let me wrap up the IRC part. > > > > 1. I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our > > developer being banned from Freenode without providing us with a > > reason. The situation looks like one of Freenode staffers > > overreacted over something Chris said during previous Council > > meeting and banned him to prevent him from attending next meetings > > when he was supposed to provide more information on the CoC topic. > > The ban was removed after an hour, > > The ban was put in place on Sunday; the ban was lifted on Tuesday > evening = way longer than one hour. Chris tried to speak to Freenode > staff on Freenode but was told he was evading the ban and they would > not speak to him there. He had to find out from me what the email I have previously indicated on IRC that the omission of the email address to respond to with questions about klines in this kline message was a mistake. He did not have to find out which email address to use from you. I told him myself. I am quite upset that you did not feel it prudent to indicate that we admit this mistake in your email. > address was (as it's not documented on Freenode's site) and email > them to ask why he was banned. Christel responded later that day and > simply apologized and removed the ban. Chris again emailed to ask > *why* he was banned but Freenode staff has ignored his second email > requesting information about his own ban. I responded personally to this request. I did consider writing another response earlier today asking for more time due to staff availability but decided doing so was overly verbose. If your personal knowledge of the person in question indicates that he prefers more verbose interaction please have him convey this to us and I will be happy to help. > To me it looks like they > not only will not tell us, they will not tell the individual who was > actually banned and that is in poor professional taste and only > further serves to drive a wedge between our ability to work with > Freenode. freenode can currently only discuss this with the person banned due to legal issues. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect much of what fmccor said to be true. > > 2. I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where > > third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who can't. > > This is an interesting idea. Perhaps a good trial for a transition? > > > 3. I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org > > alias instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so > > on. > > Seems pretty logical so I just want to say that I like this whoever > came up with this. :) This seems sensible. Thanks, -- Tom Wesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Friday 01 August 2008, Chrissy Fullam wrote: > > Debian did exactly the same a couple of months > > ago prior to them moving out to OFTC > > (http://www.debian.org/News/2006/20060604) > > This addresses a question I raised a few days back regarding whether > we were concerned that Gentoo moving to any another network would > have a negative impact on our community. This demonstrates that not > only is this not a new idea, but that a peer community did the same > thing. Does anyone have any contacts within Debian that would be > willing to share their 'lessons learned' from the transition? I don't know if this counts as a "lesson learned", but their move seems to have lead to a split. All documentation since 2006 points to OFTC, but #debian on freenode is still the largest channel, whereas even developer channels have to be maintained. It looks to me as if most developers accepted the move, while users did not. number of users (as of Sat Aug 2 14:30 CEST 2008) ~irc.freenode.net irc.oftc.net #debian 826 326 #debian.se183 #debian.de 128 124 #debian-devel 41 353 #debian-boot 6 89 Robert signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On 23:17 Thu 31 Jul , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd/4th > Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ > irc.freenode.net) ! Jokey pointed out that in fact the council meeting is August 14. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgpbwY497LFpM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:48:21 +0200 "Lukasz Damentko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2. I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where > third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who can't. So that would be "not on the Internet" then, I take it? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RE: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
> Fair enough. Let me wrap up the IRC part. > > 1. I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our > developer being banned from Freenode without providing us with a > reason. The situation looks like one of Freenode staffers overreacted > over something Chris said during previous Council meeting and banned > him to prevent him from attending next meetings when he was supposed > to provide more information on the CoC topic. The ban was removed > after an hour, The ban was put in place on Sunday; the ban was lifted on Tuesday evening = way longer than one hour. Chris tried to speak to Freenode staff on Freenode but was told he was evading the ban and they would not speak to him there. He had to find out from me what the email address was (as it's not documented on Freenode's site) and email them to ask why he was banned. Christel responded later that day and simply apologized and removed the ban. Chris again emailed to ask *why* he was banned but Freenode staff has ignored his second email requesting information about his own ban. To me it looks like they not only will not tell us, they will not tell the individual who was actually banned and that is in poor professional taste and only further serves to drive a wedge between our ability to work with Freenode. > 2. I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where > third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who can't. This is an interesting idea. Perhaps a good trial for a transition? > 3. I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org alias > instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so on. Seems pretty logical so I just want to say that I like this whoever came up with this. :) > Debian did exactly the same a couple of months > ago prior to them moving out to OFTC > (http://www.debian.org/News/2006/20060604) This addresses a question I raised a few days back regarding whether we were concerned that Gentoo moving to any another network would have a negative impact on our community. This demonstrates that not only is this not a new idea, but that a peer community did the same thing. Does anyone have any contacts within Debian that would be willing to share their 'lessons learned' from the transition? Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 12:48 +0200, Lukasz Damentko wrote: > 2008/8/1 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 23:17 Thu 31 Jul , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > >> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote > >> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev > >> list to see. > > > > I know at least one person has already submitted an agenda item. Please > > do so again here along with a brief summary, so we can get them all in > > one place. > > > > I waste a lot of time digging through lists looking for requested agenda > > items, and I could be spending it making Gentoo better instead. > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Donnie > > > > Donnie Berkholz > > Developer, Gentoo Linux > > Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com > > > > Fair enough. Let me wrap up the IRC part. > > 1. I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our > developer being banned from Freenode without providing us with a > reason. The situation looks like one of Freenode staffers overreacted > over something Chris said during previous Council meeting and banned > him to prevent him from attending next meetings when he was supposed > to provide more information on the CoC topic. The ban was removed > after an hour, but they still refuse to provide us with reasons for it > which looks like (mostly because we weren't shown any sane > justification for the ban) a cover up operation. It would be good if > Council officially protested against that ban and demanded a detailed > explanation from Freenode staff. > After some discussions, I think that legally Freenode are pretty severely limited in what they may and may not provide to us concerning any of their users. To them, Chris is a Freenode user and their own privacy policy prohibits them from disclosing anything private concerning him. They are also subject to various international privacy rules, but I do not know the extent of these. So, as I understand it, Council can ask for anything it likes, but Freenode's lawyer is not going to allow Freenode to provide much information without written consent and proof of identity from Chris, and I believe this is not negotiable. For Freenode routinely to feed reasons for any actions involving Gentoo developers back to Gentoo management, their lawyer has told them they would need a retroactive written consent form from *every* developer along with proof of identity. As I read the lawyer's statement, this is an absolute. Any provider of IRC services (including us if we ever provide them to the public) is going to be under similar restrictions, I believe. I have mentioned this briefly to the trustees because the Foundation is concerned with the legal rules controlling Gentoo, its services, and its service providers. I am hoping for more details from Freenode staff, but cannot guarantee them. Required ethical disclaimer: I provide this only for information. It is not a legal opinion, nor am I qualified to give a legal opinion on international privacy laws. I will go so far as to say that the Freenode privacy statement looks as if it was drafted by a lawyer to ensure Freenode's users that (to quote): "PDPC will not publish that information or provide it to any other third party without your explicit permission, except as required by law or as appropriate in the course of an investigation of criminal wrongdoing. PDPC will make a good faith effort to maintain the privacy of your personal information." Thus they are exposed to a law suit if they provide the information I think you are asking for. (Privacy policy at: http://freenode.net/group_privacy.shtml ) > 2. I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where > third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who can't. > Like our own small and created just for this purpose IRC server. A > situation when a third party may disallow our developer from attending > a meeting without even telling us why isn't the healthiest one. We > should be independent from such decisions of third parties so they > can't politically influence Council decisions by removing people who > are inconvenient for them. Now when it (most probably) happened once, > we have no other choice but to believe it's possible it will happen > again. > > 3. I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org alias > instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so on. The > alias would allow us to move out of the network more easily should we > ever decide to do so. Debian did exactly the same a couple of months > ago prior to them moving out to OFTC > (http://www.debian.org/News/2006/20060604) so maybe it would be a > good idea to have this for Gentoo too. Infra (Shyam Mani) say it isn't > a problem at all to create and maintain it, we in fact already have > something like this pointing at Freenode, it would be just a question > of updating that alias and updating our docs with it. It would > increase our independence from Free
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 23:17 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd/4th
> Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> irc.freenode.net) !
>
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote
> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev
> list to see.
>
> Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
> must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
> before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
> before the meeting. Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
> notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.
>
> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
Two items, or perhaps two views of the same item:
1. After some of the comments I've received after mentioning what I
think the hold-over item "2) Code of Conduct extent" is, I'm not quite
sure what Council is planning to vote on (the comments seem to conflict,
for example). Is council planning to vote on changes, possible changes
for discussion by the community, or what? If the vote is on the
specific questions Donnie raised, is the intent to implement the outcome
or to make it the official proposal for discussion? Sorry to come
across as somewhat clueless after all the ongoing discussions, but I
guess I really am confused at this point.
I think I'm going to reraise my request for someone if favor of the
proposed changes (which I no longer know quite what are) to put them in
the form of a GLEP so we can all discuss the same things. Whatever the
changes are, they do represent a policy change, and I still think the
community should be able to review the whole thing in complete form
before we just put it in place.
2. Last February, Council determined that for Code of Conduct
enforcement,
"The basic idea is to just promote individual devs responding to
people who are being jerks. Privately, unless things get out of hand."
Where I think "promote" == "get together a core culture of people". But, thus:
"My hope is that with no team of people assigned to doing this stuff, we
can actually build a culture and get more people participating rather
than having "the people who do that stuff" and everyone else."
{both quotes are Donnie's}
At least, that is what I infer from the summary of the February Council
meeting and the emails on the topic.
I am also told currently posted Code of Conduct dated March 15, 2007 is current
and in no need of revision. But I don't see it. Even if we agree that this
informal "core group" may be called proctors, they have no disciplinary
authority because (1) Council expected them to work by replying to inappropriate
email (on gentoo-dev) by requesting the jerk in question to quit being a jerk.
This is a mild form of mailing list moderation, but does not extend to anything
more;
(2) Nor could it, because this group I think is pretty much self selected and
so its
members might not even be known (so far as I know, there are people doing this
today
as called for last February), and so would have no way of getting infra to apply
any sort of suspension. But the Code of Conduct talks of actions by the
proctors
which I think the group as described last February have no capability of
carrying out.
Userrel might have such authority after the last Council meeting, but if so, the
CoC should be updated to mention that.
I believed that Code of Conduct had actually been updated, but everyone tells me
not.
===
Now, here's why my two items might be two sides of the same question. It seems
to me that current Code of Conduct as interpreted last February and perhaps
modified
last Council meeting cannot possibly be stretched to encompass Donnie's
questions from
the 13th of last month. After all, last February the Council made the Code of
Conduct
*milder* than it currently reads, with the intent of rebuilding our culture
gently but
firmly by "training" jerks not to be jerks. I find it very hard to read a
harsh,
user-only policy into that.
If the "extent of CoC enforcement" item is talking about something outside the
CoC or
a major change to the CoC from last February, then all the more reason for
someone to
put it in the form of a GLEP just like any other consequential change.
Regards,
Ferris
--
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
2008/8/1 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 23:17 Thu 31 Jul , Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote >> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev >> list to see. > > I know at least one person has already submitted an agenda item. Please > do so again here along with a brief summary, so we can get them all in > one place. > > I waste a lot of time digging through lists looking for requested agenda > items, and I could be spending it making Gentoo better instead. > > -- > Thanks, > Donnie > > Donnie Berkholz > Developer, Gentoo Linux > Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com > Fair enough. Let me wrap up the IRC part. 1. I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our developer being banned from Freenode without providing us with a reason. The situation looks like one of Freenode staffers overreacted over something Chris said during previous Council meeting and banned him to prevent him from attending next meetings when he was supposed to provide more information on the CoC topic. The ban was removed after an hour, but they still refuse to provide us with reasons for it which looks like (mostly because we weren't shown any sane justification for the ban) a cover up operation. It would be good if Council officially protested against that ban and demanded a detailed explanation from Freenode staff. 2. I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who can't. Like our own small and created just for this purpose IRC server. A situation when a third party may disallow our developer from attending a meeting without even telling us why isn't the healthiest one. We should be independent from such decisions of third parties so they can't politically influence Council decisions by removing people who are inconvenient for them. Now when it (most probably) happened once, we have no other choice but to believe it's possible it will happen again. 3. I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org alias instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so on. The alias would allow us to move out of the network more easily should we ever decide to do so. Debian did exactly the same a couple of months ago prior to them moving out to OFTC (http://www.debian.org/News/2006/20060604) so maybe it would be a good idea to have this for Gentoo too. Infra (Shyam Mani) say it isn't a problem at all to create and maintain it, we in fact already have something like this pointing at Freenode, it would be just a question of updating that alias and updating our docs with it. It would increase our independence from Freenode and make future network switching much easier should we ever decide it's time to part our ways with our current IRC service provider. The intention behind all three items is to increase our independence from our IRC service provider. Kind regards, Lukasz Damentko
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
On 23:17 Thu 31 Jul , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote > on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev > list to see. I know at least one person has already submitted an agenda item. Please do so again here along with a brief summary, so we can get them all in one place. I waste a lot of time digging through lists looking for requested agenda items, and I could be spending it making Gentoo better instead. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgpdm6grW4e65.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7
This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd/4th Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) ! If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev list to see. Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days before the meeting. Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgp16OwOswiB6.pgp Description: PGP signature
