Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-17 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:11:55 Seemant Kulleen wrote: This leaves two courses of action. 1. Officially install him as such; or 2. Stop letting him wield his power over you. (yes, you, not us -- concentrate on how much you let him affect you). I guess you know my vote. Option 1 is

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-17 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 01:34:17 Thomas Tuttle wrote: Personally, I prefer quicker mechanisms to slower ones, but some people dislike real-time communications because they can interrupt their work constantly. I think what's important is not the signal-to-noise ratio, per se, but the

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Matthias Langer wrote: no offense, but this is one of the worst proposals i've ever read on this list; why? because, one of gentoo's major problems is that it is becoming more and more a toy exclusively for its own developers. Gentoo's always been exclusively for the developers. Nobody's

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Andrew Gaffney
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Matthias Langer wrote: no offense, but this is one of the worst proposals i've ever read on this list; why? because, one of gentoo's major problems is that it is becoming more and more a toy exclusively for its own developers. Gentoo's always been exclusively for the

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Vlastimil Babka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Gaffney wrote: Donnie Berkholz wrote: Matthias Langer wrote: no offense, but this is one of the worst proposals i've ever read on this list; why? because, one of gentoo's major problems is that it is becoming more and more a toy

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Michael Krelin
That was my thought as well. We (the developers) owe nothing to the community at large. We are volunteers, and if we want to treat Gentoo as our own personal toy (which we currently aren't), then so be it. Of course Gentoo owes to the community a lot. A lot of its progress, progress of

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Michael Cummings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Vlastimil Babka wrote: Are you people serious? Let's ban nondevs from bugzilla then? Close #gentoo, disband PR, etc? Not sure if we can keep any sponsors then... ...or devs... Seriously, no users == no community. Why? Because devs don't get along

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Marius Mauch
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:42:44 -0400 Michael Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Vlastimil Babka wrote: Are you people serious? Let's ban nondevs from bugzilla then? Close #gentoo, disband PR, etc? Not sure if we can keep any sponsors then...

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Andrew Gaffney
Vlastimil Babka wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Gaffney wrote: Donnie Berkholz wrote: Matthias Langer wrote: no offense, but this is one of the worst proposals i've ever read on this list; why? because, one of gentoo's major problems is that it is becoming more

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Andrew Gaffney
Marius Mauch wrote: I think you're misinterpreting those statements. Consider if you have choose if you spend your time implementing a feature that you personally want to have or one that a user wants (and is of no use to yourself), which one would you choose, assuming that both have the same

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Richard Freeman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Gaffney wrote: Yep, this is all anyone is trying to say. We aren't paid, so we work on what we feel like working on, and do what we feel like doing (within reason). This is the great difficulty with any open-source project, and yet most

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Thomas Tuttle
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:54:44 -0400, Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I do like the gentoo-politics idea that came up a few weeks ago, which was to move politics off gentoo-dev and to another list, but I'd view it from another perspective (and avoid the words 'politics'): make

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:42:44 -0400 Michael Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Talk like this, especially from people I respected, makes me question just what its worth to keep going. If Gentoo is only about the devs, well, I'm happy with the way things are now, they work for me, so no sense in

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread George Prowse
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Matthias Langer wrote: no offense, but this is one of the worst proposals i've ever read on this list; why? because, one of gentoo's major problems is that it is becoming more and more a toy exclusively for its own developers. Gentoo's always been exclusively

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:16:45 +0100 George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Donnie Berkholz wrote: Matthias Langer wrote: no offense, but this is one of the worst proposals i've ever read on this list; why? because, one of gentoo's major problems is that it is becoming more and more a

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Peter Weller
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:24:32 -0700 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All- [..snip..] We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. --taco Eeer, I think this is one of the most idiotic ideas I've heard since I started using Gentoo. As I've seen

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:02:07 +0100 Peter Weller [EMAIL PROTECTED] The moderators should get the final word, end of. That would only work if Gentoo could find decent moderators who are prepared to put lots of effort into work that is, let's face it, entirely unnecessary and serving no point

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 13:14 +1000, Will Briggs wrote: Oh dear. slight delay in an email list forum? That's like saying you can take part in this face-to-face conversation but you have to wait 30 seconds before you can say anything In effect you reduce that person to an on-looker who can

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 06:45 -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote: That was my thought as well. We (the developers) owe nothing to the community at large. We are volunteers, and if we want to treat Gentoo as our own personal toy (which we currently aren't), then so be it. Exactly. I work on

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:37 +0200, Michael Krelin wrote: That was my thought as well. We (the developers) owe nothing to the community at large. We are volunteers, and if we want to treat Gentoo as our own personal toy (which we currently aren't), then so be it. Of course Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread George Prowse
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 13:14 +1000, Will Briggs wrote: Oh dear. slight delay in an email list forum? That's like saying you can take part in this face-to-face conversation but you have to wait 30 seconds before you can say anything In effect you reduce that person to

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 23:30 +0100, George Prowse wrote: This is going to crash and burn but wouldn't it be an ideal job description for the proctors? Instead of telling people off they could just stop people posting. That way you dont even get to know that they are even there. Seeing as

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Will Briggs
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 13:14 +1000, Will Briggs wrote: Oh dear. slight delay in an email list forum? That's like saying you can take part in this face-to-face conversation but you have to wait 30 seconds before you can say anything In effect you reduce that person to

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread George Prowse
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 06:45 -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote: That was my thought as well. We (the developers) owe nothing to the community at large. We are volunteers, and if we want to treat Gentoo as our own personal toy (which we currently aren't), then so be it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Michael Krelin
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:37 +0200, Michael Krelin wrote: That was my thought as well. We (the developers) owe nothing to the community at large. We are volunteers, and if we want to treat Gentoo as our own personal toy (which we currently aren't), then so be it. Of course Gentoo owes to the

RE: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread Chrissy Fullam
Could we try to keep this thread, and all the similarly named ones, on topic? The pointing fingers, trash talking, etc is not furthering anything. If you don't like councils opinion, or someone elses opinion, well respect them enough to allow them their own opinion. The real topic at hand is about

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-16 Thread George Prowse
Chrissy Fullam wrote: Could we try to keep this thread, and all the similarly named ones, on topic? The pointing fingers, trash talking, etc is not furthering anything. If you don't like councils opinion, or someone elses opinion, well respect them enough to allow them their own opinion. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-15 Thread Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen
On Friday 13 July 2007 01:17, Marius Mauch wrote: On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:43:59 -0700 Chrissy Fullam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev emails on a timeout, pick a number of hours, and then the email if not moderated would be released. (non-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-15 Thread Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen
On Friday 13 July 2007 03:41, Daniel Ostrow wrote: On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote: alot of good stuff snipped Works for me. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen Gentoo Linux Security Team -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-15 Thread Will Briggs
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: Fact is -dev's volume is getting to the point where it's productivity is diminishing. Both with dev - dev and dev - world. The entire idea here is to help correct that and makes things BETTER :) I hear you. (Although I disagree that there is a relationship

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-15 Thread Matthias Langer
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote: All- We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-15 Thread Will Briggs
Andrew Gaffney wrote: Matthias Langer wrote: by banning non-dev contributors from this list some of you may feel better - but gentoo as a whole will probably suffer. silencing people doesn't make their opinions invalid. I keep seeing this argument over and over again. Many people are just

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-14 Thread Will Briggs
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 19:51 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:44:03 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To future devs and any new contributing users, they will see -dev as a ml for developer interaction. They will see

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-14 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 20:20 +1000, Will Briggs wrote: But -dev is where the substantial discussion takes place. -dev would still be the inside loop. And a community based project simply should not exclude/reduce (even simply in perception) the community's involvement in that loop. Well

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-14 Thread Ferris McCormick
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:13:53 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I should cut it, but I'm leaving it so you see what I'm responding to. Seemant, thanks. On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:33 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: *sigh* It seems

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-14 Thread Christina Fullam
Christina Fullam wrote: I think everyone is overlooking the part included previously: (non-dev sends his email, time period expires and no one booted it, so the email rolls through) Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then what, exactly, is the damned point? The problem this is supposedly

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-14 Thread Dawid Węgliński
Dnia 14-07-2007, sob o godzinie 14:03 -0700, Christina Fullam napisał(a): [ .. ] -core stays private. I really dont see the need to change IMO. -project (call it what you will) would be for the off topic, non development emails that we so commonly see. this list would be optional for all

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-14 Thread Daniel Drake
Mike Doty wrote: All- We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the gentoo-project list will be created to take

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Andrew Cowie
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 19:05 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: I think the idea is being taken the wrong way. Why would you think you were second class? Because this is where the development of the Gentoo Linux distribution is discussed. I'm not a Gentoo dev either, but I manage to make my

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Peter Gordon
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote: We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Peter Gordon
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 23:41 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote: For far too long the mailing lists, IRC channels, and other media of developer communication have been ridden with belligerent, inconsiderate, and often-accusatory postings. However, instead of removing the few who cause most (if not all)

RE: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Togge
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Chrissy Fullam wrote: that post. An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev emails on a timeout, pick a number of hours, and then the email if not moderated would be released. (non-dev sends his email, time period expires and no one booted it, so the email

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Seemant Kulleen
Thanks for expressing your point of view that clearly. I stand with you. Gentoo, for a while, has been taking itself *way* too seriously. Perhaps that mentality is part of the inevitability of a project's evolution through its own stages of life. Or perhaps, it's just human nature to shriek in

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Grant Goodyear
Mike Doty wrote: [Thu Jul 12 2007, 03:24:32PM CDT] We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the gentoo-project

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. It's like proctors, but worse. The only achievement will be another few devs retiring. Btw. I haven't seen any flamewars recently, have you? (probably except what this thread will become) -- Best

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 03:11 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote: Thanks for expressing your point of view that clearly. I stand with you. Gentoo, for a while, has been taking itself *way* too seriously. Perhaps that mentality is part of the inevitability of a project's evolution through its own

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Roy Marples
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 15:26 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: If you want businesses to use Gentoo, you need to start offering things that make Gentoo a better solution than other distributions. That, first and foremost, means technical improvements, an area upon which Gentoo is most definitely

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:14:00 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I consider it growing up. Do we want businesses to run and base their service/product offerings on Gentoo? If so we must take it seriously. Otherwise we are just a hobby distro for the uber geeks. If you want

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 15:26 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:14:00 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What makes a developer only -dev list any different than developers only having a voice on #gentoo-dev? The former is where development discussion

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Vieri Di Paola
Hi, As a non-dev who recently joined this list, I think it would be too bad for me if you made those policy changes. Basically, I neither have the skills nor the time (yet) to even try to become a dev but I truly enjoy contributing once in a while especially for packages I use at work. Since

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Thomas Tuttle
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:08:38 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 15:26 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:14:00 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What makes a developer only -dev list any different than

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:11:55 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've said for a while now (on this list, on my blogs) -- bad behaviour happens on this list because we (as a community) allow it to happen. If it's not encouraged and trolls are not fed, they die out. Part of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:41:33 -0700 Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1). Create 1 (ONE) new list, which, for the purposes of this discussion I will call it gentoo-dev-info (the name matters not). The requirement for subscription for all devs would shift from gentoo-dev to gentoo-dev-info.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Jim Ramsay
Seemant Kulleen wrote: Thanks for expressing your point of view that clearly. I stand with you. snip: More clear arguments I'm just adding one more comment that I don't think I've seen yet in this thread. (Although it's been a long thread, and I don't remember all the points from all the

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Joe Peterson
Donnie Berkholz wrote: On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:41:33 -0700 Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1). Create 1 (ONE) new list, which, for the purposes of this discussion I will call it gentoo-dev-info (the name matters not). The requirement for subscription for all devs would shift from

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 23:41 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote: Quite frankly, this (if passed) will be Gentoo's deathbed moment, and this mail will be one of my last from an official Gentoo account. Sure. Just like CoC. Or PMS. Or whatever the popular Gentoo is dying topic was prior to that. If you

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 03:11 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote: What I find absolutely astounding is how much power Ciaran (we all know the elephant in the room that motivates this newest council announcement) wields over Gentoo. *sigh* Why is it that everyone always assumes everything the Council

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:14 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: What makes a developer only -dev list any different than developers only having a voice on #gentoo-dev? It is a change from what we have now and all change is bad, mm'kay. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:25:21 -0700 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seriously, how about instead of these childish if this happens, I'm taking my toys and going home attitudes, you instead try to determine what you can do to improve a situation you see as bad for Gentoo with one you

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:33:40 -0700 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're trying to solve the problem of people, *ALL* people, treating each other like complete crap on our lists. And three Council members come extremely high up the list of treating people like crap. Or are [1], [2],

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:39 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: I just read an article about this [1]. To summarize, in a volunteer community, there needs to be more people enforcing the rules than people breaking them. A small group of proctors doesn't work -- we need everyone to join in to enforce

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread darren kirby
quoth the Chris Gianelloni: Seriously, how about instead of these childish if this happens, I'm taking my toys and going home attitudes, As opposed to the childish I don't want to hear from a few outspoken users so let's close up the list attitude? you instead try to determine what you

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:35 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:14 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: What makes a developer only -dev list any different than developers only having a voice on #gentoo-dev? It is a change from what we have now and all change is bad,

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 12:04 -0600, darren kirby wrote: quoth the Chris Gianelloni: Seriously, how about instead of these childish if this happens, I'm taking my toys and going home attitudes, As opposed to the childish I don't want to hear from a few outspoken users so let's close

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:44:03 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To future devs and any new contributing users, they will see -dev as a ml for developer interaction. They will see -project as a place for interaction with the community. Wouldn't that be, uh, -user? -- Ciaran

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Chris Scullard
Another user here throwing in his two cents (Gentoo must be rich by now). But I think that the mailing list absolutely needs changes. Like it or not, after the recent negative press, including the embarassing Daniel Robbins incident, this list has become a much higher-profile public face of

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 19:51 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:44:03 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To future devs and any new contributing users, they will see -dev as a ml for developer interaction. They will see -project as a place for

RE: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Christina Fullam
Darren kirby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what exactly is the bloody point if all of the contributions from users are going to rot in some queue until they are no longer relevant? I think everyone is overlooking the part included previously: An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 13:53 -0500, Chris Scullard wrote: Chris Thanks for a level-headed response, Chris. I think the biggest source of confusion is that few people went to actually read the Council stuff from last meeting. Some points of contention that nobody seems to be getting: - Nobody

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Thomas Tuttle
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:37:42 -0700, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 13:53 -0500, Chris Scullard wrote: Chris Thanks for a level-headed response, Chris. I think the biggest source of confusion is that few people went to actually read the Council stuff from

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread lnxg33k
I'm (obviously) not a dev but contribute some from time to time. Not much more can be said than has already been stated, but since (I believe) this thread started out asking for input, I just wanted to toss in a negative vote. Essentially I don't see it solving any problem and stepping on the toes

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Seemant Kulleen
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:33 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: *sigh* It seems impossible to have any sort of discussion with you (unless one is in agreement with you, of course, and then one is clear headed) without eliciting a *sigh* -- I don't think it's particularly the healthiest way to have

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:13:53PM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote: My thought is this: everyone should try and evaluate their own behaviour on this list, and the method in which they treat others. If each of us actually thought about the effects of our attitudes, this discussion might well be

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Josh Saddler
Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:13:53PM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote: My thought is this: everyone should try and evaluate their own behaviour on this list, and the method in which they treat others. If each of us actually thought about the effects of our attitudes, this

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-13 Thread Kumba
Robin H. Johnson wrote: I won't leave just because I disagree with some management decision that Council makes. I might be stubborn and disenchanted for some time (witness the many murmurs of discontent), but it's against my own best interests to leave Gentoo. As it was put before, if you

[gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Mike Doty
All- We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Bryan Østergaard
On 7/12/07, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All- We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the gentoo-project

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Olivier Crête
On Thu, 2007-12-07 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote: We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Jim Ramsay
Mike Doty wrote: devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. Will this be monitored/enforced by the proctors? -- Jim Ramsay Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm) signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Mike Doty
Jim Ramsay wrote: Mike Doty wrote: devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. Will this be monitored/enforced by the proctors? no. it will probably be devrel who decides if someone was moderating inappropriately. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:24:32 -0700 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. Seems to me that this proposal doesn't solve any problem or address any issue, and is merely a knee-jerk well we have to do something

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Josh Sled
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the What's the definition of bad? -- ...jsled http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Dale
Bryan Østergaard wrote: On 7/12/07, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All- We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Josh Saddler
Jim Ramsay wrote: Mike Doty wrote: devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. Will this be monitored/enforced by the proctors? See the council meeting logs when they're posted. Having just watched the meeting live, I saw that the proctors project was just

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Thomas Tuttle
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:31:31 +0200, Bryan Østergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 7/12/07, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Thomas Tuttle
Oh, a couple more questions. On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:24:32 -0700, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: All- We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post What about arch testers? but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. This is bad, for two

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread expose
This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway) but that's a path to cross later. If it will remove the need for -core, why not move some future -dev content to -core, and make -dev the new list you called -project? So, if you move discussions where non-devs

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Ned Ludd
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote: All- We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Thomas Tuttle
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:55:15 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: How will moderation actually work? Whom to ask to moderate a mail? Just mail a random dev, at best one having to do with the issue or the discussion, to his [EMAIL PROTECTED] address and ask to forward the post or how? Most mailing

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Seemant Kulleen
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote: All- We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread expose
Most mailing list systems have a built-in provision for moderation. The devs who haven't been meta-moderated out (to use the Slashdot term) would have access to it, and could approve or reject messages from non-devs. I guess. Wouldnt this allow for the following: Devs A, B, C are argueing

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Jeffrey Gardner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Seemant Kulleen wrote: My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but public, and leave -dev as it is? That way we don't have to muck around with deprecating lists and introducing new ones. ^ ^ I agree with that idea ^ ^ -

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Denis Dupeyron
On 7/12/07, Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but public, and leave -dev as it is? That way we don't have to muck around with deprecating lists and introducing new ones. That looks like a good idea to me if the mandatory

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Tom Wesley
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:31:31PM +0200, Bryan Østergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute anything more. +1 This move would be shooting Gentoo in the foot, in my

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Michael Krelin
Is this course of tightening all possible restrictions permanent now? Love, H Mike Doty wrote: All- We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Krzysiek Pawlik
Seemant Kulleen wrote: My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but public, and leave -dev as it is? That way we don't have to muck around with deprecating lists and introducing new ones. I'm for that idea - less problems for infra, no big changes. Would the archives of

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:21:40 +0200 Krzysiek Pawlik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm for that idea - less problems for infra, no big changes. Would the archives of -core be opened too? That's been discussed several times in the past. Agreement has always been that any change to the public status of

Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Marius Mauch
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:43:57 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote: All- We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who

RE: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Chrissy Fullam
The -project mailing list ... is a required list for a dev to join. Sorry, NOT a required list for devs to join. Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

RE: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-12 Thread Chrissy Fullam
On 7/12/07, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All- We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the

  1   2   >