Hi everyone,
Recently the Code of Conduct was established, and it's about time to
present the initial team of people working on getting things done:
Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon)
Joshua Jackson (tsunam)
and myself.
We are currently in the process of bringing in some more people to
gain a team that i
Hi List,
The following mail has been written on Tuesday before alot of the recent
discussions. It hasn't been changed except for three passages, which I left
out (marked with "[...]") which had no actual content, and don't make sense
to be send to the list, but only to the actual addressee, who
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> So you consider it acceptable to remove the user's ability to use
> packages and dependencies of those packages because of some personal
> dislikes?
>
It should not be personal dislikes. Such a strong position should be well
considered by the on
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 23:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>at do you think users will say when told that their system will
> remain vulnerable to a remote root hole because Gentoo won't accept a
> fix from a particular person? Do you think they'll smile, nod and
> accept that their system is about t
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 23:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:31:17 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, this cannot have any backward application, nor should it. All
> > contributions made while respecting the guidelines, are valid
> > contr
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:56:31 +0100
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you explain how this is implausible. Removing contributions by
> a certain person may be silly or impossible. Refusing to accept new
> contributions is, while a very harsh measure, a possibility.
Perhaps not impl
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:56:31 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100
> >
> > "Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be
> >
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:31:17 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, this cannot have any backward application, nor should it. All
> contributions made while respecting the guidelines, are valid
> contributions. Yes, it prevents any further contributions in the
> future
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100
>
> "Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
> > answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
> > it's a
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ.
>>
>
> Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or
> refusing to accept updates to
Am Mittwoch 14 März 2007 19:18 schrieb Mauricio Lima Pilla:
> We don't need to bother hunting all the contributions in all open-source
> projects to avoid them, as it would be much of a PITA. We can be selective
> and not accept code directly submitted by such users, which would clearly
> state tha
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 18:24:58 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 "Ioannis Aslanidis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
> > answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 15:01:49 Stephen Bennett wrote:
> And if refusing to use code credited to that individual means that we
> can't use the linux kernel or bash?
We don't need to bother hunting all the contributions in all open-source
projects to avoid them, as it would be much of a PITA.
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:31:57 -0300
Mauricio Lima Pilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or maybe he wanted to make it sound like the idea was implausible,
> which it isn't IMO.
And if refusing to use code credited to that individual means that we
can't use the linux kernel or bash?
--
gentoo-dev@ge
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 13:06:13 Stephen Bennett wrote:
...
> I think his intention was to demonstrate that the idea is implausible,
> at best counterproductive and at worst disastrous. Which it is, and
> which he did fairly well.
Or maybe he wanted to make it sound like the idea was implausibl
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ.
>
> Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or
> refusing to accept updates to their previo
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: [Wed Mar 14 2007, 10:02:47AM CDT]
> In my view, there's one important penalty missing from this code of
> conduct. Actually, the most important penalty - as a last measure, all
> input from a person to the project will be denied. What I mean is that
> for worst off
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 "Ioannis Aslanidis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
> answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
> it's all rethoric, what is your opinion?
My opinion is that screwing
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100
"Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
> answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
> it's all rethoric, what is your opinion?
I think his intention was
Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
it's all rethoric, what is your opinion?
On 3/14/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vic
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Richard Brown wrote:
>> Respectfully, you're wrong. When you're writing a
>> policy document we do need to dissect every word.
>
> I disagree with that. At least in my country, laws are written in a
> flexible enough way to give judges the ability to interprete the law
> to
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ.
Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or
refusing to accept updates to their previous contributions? Does this
extend
Hi.
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> Hiya all,
>
> As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
> given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
> Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
> proposal can be found at http://dev.gento
Hi.
Wernfried Haas wrote:
[snip]
> Please define access. Does that mean they get to ban people from the
> forums and all #gentoo-* channels? Do they get mod/op powers or just
> request it from the respective forum moderators / channel operators
> (who _have_ to follow their orders)?
>
>
[snip]
Richard Brown wrote:
Respectfully, you're wrong. When you're writing a
policy document we do need to dissect every word.
I disagree with that. At least in my country, laws are written in a
flexible enough way to give judges the ability to interprete the law to
a certain extend, and it works j
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:25:23 -0500
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] The previous doc had no "moral weight", so to
> speak, because it was imposed on devs without any real discussion, and
> that's made it hard to enforce. Moreover, there's long been notable
> distrust of devrel,
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Then why are there public archives?
>>
>
> Note the subtle difference between "receiving" and "reading in public
> archives". Some people may prefer their mail client.
Disallowing someone from receiving mail from the list just to make it
possibly
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 01:25, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Ubuntu uses "Community Council". I suggested "Community Relations".
> *Shrug*
"Community Relations" sounds fine to me.
>
> Here's my problem with it: essentially what you're arguing for the
> proctors to be is the same as what devrel should
070314 Marius Mauch wrote:
> Why does this have to be rushed so quickly?
> Just to "fight" the bad PR caused by the distrowatch article?
As a user for 3.5 years & an observer who has read this thread,
but started deleting the original abusive thread as soon as it got going,
I'ld say Council has ha
Robin H. Johnson wrote: [Tue Mar 13 2007, 06:05:10PM CDT]
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > * Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please?
> > Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first
> > one that came to mind.
> Suggestions welcom
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Thanks for the work on the new doc; it's much appreciated.
>
> Despite how critical I'm being, I really do appreciate the work that
> has gone into this so far. Thank you very much.
+1
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
ge
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:05:10 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > * Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please?
> > Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first
> > one that came to mi
[replying here as it already cleared out a couple of things i wanted
to ask]
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 05:19:03PM +, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> 3. The proctors would be given the access required to execute any
> suspensions or similar actions.
Please define access. Does that mean they get to
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 20:24 +, Richard Brown wrote:
>> Why is it a such a problem to be clear? The council is proposing changes
>> that affect us all, giving us two days to discuss it, and then a council
>> member is shouting at someone when he says he thinks the CoC i
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> * Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please?
> Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first
> one that came to mind.
Suggestions welcome. We were stuck for other suitable names, and it was
my own suggest
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 16:00 +0100, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
Uhh, no. This gets enforced on devs and users alike.
I wouldn't bring it up in the first place, but we've had previous examples
with devs calling other devs not so kind things and to my knowle
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> * Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please?
> Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first
> one that came to mind.
+1, i think i haven't ever heard that word before, and it sounds quite
empty to me as
Thanks for the write-up :)
| Receiving one (or more) warnings. Usually, you wouldn't be banned for
| a single warning, but it might happen if we feel your infraction is
| severe enough. We consider banning to be pretty serious; we take each
| situation on a case-by-case basis and make sure we alw
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
Hiya all,
As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christe
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 22:09, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Thanks for the work on the new doc; it's much appreciated.
> Despite how critical I'm being, I really do appreciate the work that
> has gone into this so far. Thank you very much.
I agree on all points.
--
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervo
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 20:24 +, Richard Brown wrote:
> Why is it a such a problem to be clear? The council is proposing changes
> that affect us all, giving us two days to discuss it, and then a council
> member is shouting at someone when he says he thinks the CoC is unclear?
I am shouting at
Thanks for the work on the new doc; it's much appreciated.
Here's some comments, in no particularly good order:
* Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please?
Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first
one that came to mind.
> As some of you are already aware, I was
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> What exactly do previous examples have to do with us saying that our
> past efforts didn't work and our trying to come up with a *new* way of
> doing these things to not repeat past problems/mistakes?
>
> Let me just clarify this.
>
> We don't care how things were done i
On 13/03/07, Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:01:33 +
"Jeff Rollin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> UTC and GMT being the same, right? so 2100UTC is exactly nine hours
> after 1200GMT?
For all relevant purposes, yes.
--
Tyvm.
--
Q: What will happen in the Aft
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:01:33 +
"Jeff Rollin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> UTC and GMT being the same, right? so 2100UTC is exactly nine hours
> after 1200GMT?
For all relevant purposes, yes.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 13/03/07, Christel Dahlskjaer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hiya all,
Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in
order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at
2100UTC.
UTC and GMT being the same, right? so 2100UTC is exactly nine hours
after 1
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 16:00 +0100, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
> > Uhh, no. This gets enforced on devs and users alike.
> I wouldn't bring it up in the first place, but we've had previous examples
> with devs calling other devs not so kind things and to my knowledge it didn't
> result in an
Hi,
And first, thanks for the work done.
I'd like to make a few comments about this Code of Conduct.
Over the past years, Gentoo has been organised over a large part of
paper-rules, and other theorical precepts. But human nature is just not
theorical. And therefore, we have to constantly ada
Hi,
And first, thanks for the work done.
I'd like to make a few comments about this Code of Conduct.
Over the past years, Gentoo has been organised over a large part of
paper-rules, and other theorical precepts. But human nature is just not
theorical. And therefore, we have to constantly ad
Hi again.
Thank you all for your input so far, which I will evaluate together with
my trusted mentourage, er, the council. I'd just like to clarify a
couple of things that seem to have left a few of you confused:
1. The Proctors is not a Userrel Sub project. The Code of Conduct would
apply to eve
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:10:21 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, mlmmj doesn't have this sort of feature. Instead, it has a more
>> procmail-like access list. We can use that to put users into a
>> read-only status, by filtering for them and denyi
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:10:21 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, mlmmj doesn't have this sort of feature. Instead, it has a more
> procmail-like access list. We can use that to put users into a
> read-only status, by filtering for them and denying posting from them,
> but th
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 15:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> We should be enforcing this on all channels. It shouldn't be "OK" to be
> an asshole on one medium and not another.
Ack.
> > -What are the appeal options if any?
>
> Council.
Then it should perhaps be mentioned in the proposal.
> > So the
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 14:01 +0100, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2007 13:32, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> >
> > First of all, I think most part of the code is just common sense. That's
> > also the reason that it is not explicit about many things. Strictly defined
> > rules don'
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 09:34 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:28:50 -0400
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 07:30 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> > > banning/suspending a user from a mailing list. They would retain the
> > > right to r
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:28:50 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 07:30 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> > banning/suspending a user from a mailing list. They would retain the
> > right to receive the mail, just not comment for a short period (and
> > hopefully
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 07:30 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> banning/suspending a user from a mailing list. They would retain the
> right to receive the mail, just not comment for a short period (and
> hopefully cooler heads will prevail, yada, etc.).
You mean the privilege to receive the mails, r
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 13:32, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>
> First of all, I think most part of the code is just common sense. That's
> also the reason that it is not explicit about many things. Strictly defined
> rules don't apply in all situations, and jerks find ways around them or to
> argue that
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
Hiya all,
As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christe
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 13:05, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
> I wrote to Christel earlier today about this. But AFAIR we usually have at
> least a week to discuss such proposals. Apart from that enforcing our users
> this code of conduct with only three days of discussion is not what I find
>
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 13:05, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
> http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk/branches/1.2/channels/chan_sip.c?r1=580
>52&r2=56230
Woops just disregard that paste in the middle of it all:-) My mouse is severly
lacking on this box while compiling :-(
--
Sune Kloppenborg
Hiya,
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 03:12, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> Hiya all,
>
> As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
> given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
> Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
> proposal
Heyas Christel,
A few quick comments - the document specifically calls out the
gentoo-dev mailing list (for obvious reasons in the last week or two),
but never identifies any other part of "Gentoo's official
communication infrastructure". While I completely understand the
intent, the scope might w
On 13/03/07, Christel Dahlskjaer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hiya all,
As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
proposal can be found
On 13/03/07, Christel Dahlskjaer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hiya all,
As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
proposal can be found
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> Hiya all,
>
> As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
> given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
> Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
> proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.or
Mike Bonar wrote:
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
Hiya all,
As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
proposal can be found at http://dev.ge
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
Hiya all,
As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christe
Hiya all,
As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting
given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for
Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this
proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml
comments and sugges
69 matches
Mail list logo
