Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 unacceptable. Paul ps. Not that I've been letting him do so, but I've been otherwise occupied. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 relevant-to-irrelevant ratio. To me, it makes no difference whether the traffic that I don't care about is spam/trolls or just discussion of another project. So I'd support -dev being for coordination of core development and -project being for other things, so that people can read all of -dev easily and simply pay attention to only what they want to see on -project. But I see no reason to moderate either -- #-dev is moderated because IRC is an easy medium to disrupt. It's a lot harder to wander on to a mailing list and start trolling, and it's easier to block. Many people also have very little time to invest into gentoo. For those it is not possible to be on IRC often, while for e-mail you can indeed save up things until the end of the day and reply when it is convenient to you. As such a -dev mailing list is much more useful than a #-dev IRC channel. Ignoring the list is ignoring many developers who want to do work instead of monitoring IRC. Paul -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 paying us to do this. It just so happens that the things we want to do also benefit other people, and so they use them. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 developers. Nobody's paying us to do this. It just so happens that the things we want to do also benefit other people, and so they use them. 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. -- Andrew Gaffney http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Catalyst/Installer + x86 release coordinator -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
-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 exclusively for its own developers. Gentoo's always been exclusively for the developers. Nobody's paying us to do this. It just so happens that the things we want to do also benefit other people, and so they use them. 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. 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... - -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGm2AFtbrAj05h3oQRAnqlAJ4yiS73x/jAdaWJMv+Fh6fG33vaSACfdWJX GUCkyeDMTw0paODJ2bD86GU= =f7s+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 the applications included, etc. But it's not a matter of obligation. Being nice to others is a nice thing to do and a way to look better too. The opposite is... well, the opposite. Love, H -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
-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 with each other well enough to qualify as a community. It's really the untold masses that make Gentoo a community. What's one of the top resources cited as the greatness of Gentoo? The wiki. Which isn't even official or sanctioned, but that is instead run largely by the community at large. Bah. This entire debate is extremely disheartening. How many devs out there sprung from the ground pre-formed, and how many started out as users in the community? *That* is the pool from which we draw our ranks, from which we get our support and direction. This elitist attitude is what drives the rationale devs to be hermits and just answer to their small piece of the pie - because we don't give two figs about who's ego is mightiest, just that we are producing something useful that makes us happy, without breaking things for those dependent on us, the users. 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 working any further on perl-land. Bah. - -- - -o()o-- Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net Gentoo/SPARC Gentoo/AMD64 GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E - -o()o-- Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGm2fEq1ztTp5/Ti4RAlQ+AJwKsEC1IQImUbUmq/7zNBsXxGv73ACeK6hV or9txg0OFsHguSq3kCm1Kfk= =TiyV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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... ...or devs... Seriously, no users == no community. Why? Because devs don't get along with each other well enough to qualify as a community. It's really the untold masses that make Gentoo a community. What's one of the top resources cited as the greatness of Gentoo? The wiki. Which isn't even official or sanctioned, but that is instead run largely by the community at large. Bah. This entire debate is extremely disheartening. How many devs out there sprung from the ground pre-formed, and how many started out as users in the community? *That* is the pool from which we draw our ranks, from which we get our support and direction. This elitist attitude is what drives the rationale devs to be hermits and just answer to their small piece of the pie - because we don't give two figs about who's ego is mightiest, just that we are producing something useful that makes us happy, without breaking things for those dependent on us, the users. 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 working any further on perl-land. 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 cost? It's all about priority, nothing more, nothing less. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 and more a toy exclusively for its own developers. Gentoo's always been exclusively for the developers. Nobody's paying us to do this. It just so happens that the things we want to do also benefit other people, and so they use them. 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. 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... You misunderstand. I'm not saying that all non-devs can get bent and their opinions be damned. I'm just saying that at the core, Gentoo is still the same as it was back in the day. Gentoo isn't a commercial distribution, and nobody pays us, so we can do anything we want, whether the user community at large likes it or not. We ultimately answer only to ourselves. -- Andrew Gaffney http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Catalyst/Installer + x86 release coordinator -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 cost? It's all about priority, nothing more, nothing less. 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). -- Andrew Gaffney http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Catalyst/Installer + x86 release coordinator -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
-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 work fairly well (including Gentoo despite all the talk in the last few months). Nobody is paying the devs to be devs. Nobody is paying the ATs to be ATs, nobody is paying the formum mods to keep things clean. Nobody is paying the users to submit bugs, or to humor the flamewars that often follow in bugzilla. Why are the users here? Gentoo meets a need. Why are the devs here? Gentoo meets a need. While they might have different roles, ultimately we all benefit from working well together. What the project needs to do is to create an environment where each can succeed without burning out. This requires effort on all parts, and the occasional application of moderation between the brain/keyboard interface (regardless of one's stance on ML moderation I think we can all agree on this point). I think that this particular debate is coming across fairly divisively, and has the potential to be very damaging. I think we need to choose our words carefully. Ultimately we're all here to scratch an itch of some kind. To the extent that devs work on projects that might not benefit themselves personally we need to recognize and appreciate their charity. For their part devs have to realize that users often do recognize this and often do try to go out of their way to humor some devs abrasive retorts in bugzilla/etc (and this does not in ANY way apply to all, or even most, devs). There are both devs and users which give the larger population a bad reputation, even though their individual contributions might warrant their continued participation in Gentoo - and we all need to recognize this. The fact is we all get further ahead in life when we learn to work together. Some here might not be in the working world yet - trust me - corporate IT is a whole different beast whether you're working for a start-up or an enterprise - say something rash to a customer or partner and you might never work in the industry again (and that goes both ways in the vendor/customer relationship). For those already in the real world - it is nice to have a project where one can pick and choose what one works on without having to keep one's guard up - but all interactions in life require some level of care if we ant to work together. Ultimately fostering some level of professionalism has to be a goal of the project. It doesn't have to be so dry that there isn't any fun - but raging flamewars will cause the project to bleed contributors, future-contributors, and sponsors (those nice infrastructure servers require power, bandwidth, hardware, and people to run them). And we don't need the bureaucracy associated with most large IT organizations to accomplish this - just being polite goes a long way. When somebody treats you as if you're their personal slave do feel free to point it out, but do so nicely and they'll probably get the point and bug you a whole lot less in the future than if they just get a snappy retort. And extreme problem cases can always be dealt with using technical means (bans/etc). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGm4gDG4/rWKZmVWkRAp4qAKCqyok4HGwrEvcqmRulz3HydsgcTwCcCSPp Gct+FtaHsTdbsyEDfuXAkcI= =siL8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 gentoo-dev for development topics only, and have another list for the rest. But, I suspect we'd come back to the same problem on both lists, where some people are too keen to talk and deviate too far away from technical discussion. On IRC, when a conversation wanders offtopic, one of the ops just nudges the participants and says hey, you should move your conversation to #gentoo-foo (or ##foo or whatever). Wouldn't it be easy enough for someone to do that here? It'd be pretty easy to specify what's on- and off-topic for each list, and it would be friendlier than moderation, just like it's friendlier for IRC ops to ask you nicely to switch channels than to simply kick you out. --Thomas Tuttle -- Thomas Tuttle - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ttuttle.net/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 working any further on perl-land. You're still doing the work because you want to do it. The benefit to you is that it fulfills you somehow, which means you're doing it for yourself. You're interpreting things more narrowly. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 developers. Nobody's paying us to do this. It just so happens that the things we want to do also benefit other people, and so they use them. That is possibly the most pathetic, misjudged and harmful (to Gentoo) post I have ever read. You should be ashamed. Just because developers develop because they want to doesn't mean they dont want to be part of a community, if that wasn't the case then none of the current developers would have originally been part of the userbase to begin with. Gentoo is becoming a joke, how many more developers have to leave? How many more harmful articles will it take? Users have left in droves and you seem to be becoming more and more insular the worse it gets. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 toy exclusively for its own developers. Gentoo's always been exclusively for the developers. Nobody's paying us to do this. It just so happens that the things we want to do also benefit other people, and so they use them. That is possibly the most pathetic, misjudged and harmful (to Gentoo) post I have ever read. You should be ashamed. Well, I'm not. I have no idea what you read, but it doesn't appear to be what I wrote. Just because developers develop because they want to doesn't mean they dont want to be part of a community, if that wasn't the case then none of the current developers would have originally been part of the userbase to begin with. What relevance does this have to anything I said? I wasn't addressing anything about being part of communities; I was addressing the motivation of volunteers contributing to Gentoo. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 before in various projects, a blacklist is *much* easier to maintain than a whitelist, it makes *much* more sense to get a team of people (not necessarily developers?) to moderate the Mailing Lists, to a standard, complete, set of rules - was the CoC complete when the Proctors started? Could this be why the idea didn't work originally? A Mailing List should be treated like the forums and IRC, those who misbehave get a warning. Then if they continue, a ban. They had their chance, they fucked up, sod them. And now there's people polluting the Mailing List with the freakin' weather in what seems to be some form of a protest to the ML changes. This is stupid. Don't make the changes. Make a complete set of rules for moderation, appoint a suitable team of developers (and users?) to moderate the mailing list, make sure that they've had experience in moderation. Pick moderators from various timezones to ensure a timely stop to any potential flamewars. Teach the people using the mailing list that there is NO excuse for misbehaviour. A ban is a ban, you can't get around it. No bribing high-up council members or devrel members to get you unbanned. This will bring about a fall in the system. The moderators should get the final word, end of. Keep discussions *technical*, attempt not to bring personal differences into the public. Take it off-list, just as you would PM someone on the forums or IRC. It's the same thing. Anyway, those are just my 2 cents. welp signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 beyond letting a few people able to be seen to be 'doing something'. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 throw in the occassional comment. The comments themselves are reduced in their relevance or impact because by the time they are heard, the conversation has moved on. On a mailing list? We're not talking IRC here. We're talking mailing lists. I can take a nap, a full 8 hour sleep, or many times even take the WEEKEND OFF FROM GENTOO and still manage to come back and give useful input. Email isn't exactly instant and nobody who runs a mail server will even pretend that it is. Adding a, say, 3 hour delay between posting and the timeout, doesn't seem to me like it would affect much of anything. After all, I managed to not touch my email since Friday and I am still managing to participate in this conversation. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 Gentoo because I want to work on it. It scratches an itch that I have. I like using it personally and also professionally. I find it easier to help improve Gentoo, thereby making it better for myself, than to simply ask others to fix it for me and hope that they're interested in changing things in the same manner as I am. This is exactly why I became a developer and why I still am a developer. That being said, I know that I, as well as many other Gentoo developers, will gladly accept payment to work on what YOU want me to work on, but until such time as I am in someone else's employ, I'll be working on what I choose to work on myself. If you don't like what a developer is working on or would rather they work on something that interests you, offer to pay them. Unless they're your employee, they owe you nothing. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 community a lot. A lot of its progress, progress of the applications included, etc. But it's not a matter of obligation. Being nice to others is a nice thing to do and a way to look better too. The opposite is... well, the opposite. Well said... Remember that if we really didn't give a crap about the community, we wouldn't be writing open source software. If we didn't care about the users, we wouldn't release our software to them. We wouldn't have a bug tracker, forums, and all the other things that we do and maintain solely for the community. To phrase it in another manner that might make more sense, any given developer is going to be more interested in fixing/changing what is important or interesting to them than what some group of users wants them to fix/change. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 an on-looker who can throw in the occassional comment. The comments themselves are reduced in their relevance or impact because by the time they are heard, the conversation has moved on. On a mailing list? We're not talking IRC here. We're talking mailing lists. I can take a nap, a full 8 hour sleep, or many times even take the WEEKEND OFF FROM GENTOO and still manage to come back and give useful input. Email isn't exactly instant and nobody who runs a mail server will even pretend that it is. Adding a, say, 3 hour delay between posting and the timeout, doesn't seem to me like it would affect much of anything. After all, I managed to not touch my email since Friday and I am still managing to participate in this conversation. 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 most of them are forum mods there could even be a why was I blocked? thread in Feedback... Their decision to forward emails to a -politics (or whatever it was) ML would be a great one -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 how our original ideas for how the proctors would work pretty much fell exactly in line with this, I would say yes to your question. Of course, I now tend to agree that having a larger pool of mods for gentoo-dev is probably better. It allows any developer to participate, reducing the good ol' boy argument, since participation is open to all developers. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 an on-looker who can throw in the occassional comment. The comments themselves are reduced in their relevance or impact because by the time they are heard, the conversation has moved on. On a mailing list? We're not talking IRC here. We're talking mailing lists. I can take a nap, a full 8 hour sleep, or many times even take the WEEKEND OFF FROM GENTOO and still manage to come back and give useful input. Email isn't exactly instant and nobody who runs a mail server will even pretend that it is. Adding a, say, 3 hour delay between posting and the timeout, doesn't seem to me like it would affect much of anything. After all, I managed to not touch my email since Friday and I am still managing to participate in this conversation. 1) The smaller the moderation time, the smaller the benefit of having moderation at all. The greater the moderation time, the greater the penalty for not being one of the in crowd. 3 hours is an interesting figure to consider in this light and I would love to see some justification as to why that is the sweet spot (if, in fact, a sweet spot exists) 2) I agree - I too sleep between reading gentoo-dev. But the difference is that you are talking about a delay in reading the list (like, for, yeah, sleep). The proposal, however, is a delay between between your awareness of the current state of the conversation (and your writing of a reply), and the actual distribution of your reply. So, for instance: someone asks a (technical) question, no-one has replied, so I reply. $moderation_delay later my answer is distributed, but in the mean time n other people have answered. I (or they depending on whether they were moderated as well) look like an idiot, and the end result is more noise on the list, not less. And you can throw in a whole other bunch of the sorts of thing that can happen in the delay between reading writing, and the actual distribution of the email -- clarifications, retractions (Don't worry I've solved it emails), solutions, and even warnings from people that the thread is off-topic! This is only compounded when the thread needs a bit of to and fro (the when you said X, did you mean X+Z? type email). Email being what it is there are always posts that pass in the night and double-ups and delays. These, while minimal, are one of email's inherent frustrations. The proposal simply amplifies that frustration. Moderation delay is not the same thing as having a sleep between readings of the list. W. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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. Exactly. I work on Gentoo because I want to work on it. It scratches an itch that I have. I like using it personally and also professionally. I find it easier to help improve Gentoo, thereby making it better for myself, than to simply ask others to fix it for me and hope that they're interested in changing things in the same manner as I am. This is exactly why I became a developer and why I still am a developer. That being said, I know that I, as well as many other Gentoo developers, will gladly accept payment to work on what YOU want me to work on, but until such time as I am in someone else's employ, I'll be working on what I choose to work on myself. If you don't like what a developer is working on or would rather they work on something that interests you, offer to pay them. Unless they're your employee, they owe you nothing. Maybe you should change the Gentoo philosophy: http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/philosophy.xml Us, the Gentoo Proletariat, respect the developers because of the great work they do for free but that doesn't absolve you of any responsibility towards Gentoo, quite the opposite. The Gentoo philosophy and how it states the need for Gentoo to accomodate the needs of it's users establishes a minimum level of responsibility from the Distro to it's userbase so basically stating I do what I want and how I want is not in keeping with the way Gentoo was meant to be run and shouldn't be how it is being run at this moment in time. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 community a lot. A lot of its progress, progress of the applications included, etc. But it's not a matter of obligation. Being nice to others is a nice thing to do and a way to look better too. The opposite is... well, the opposite. Well said... Remember that if we really didn't give a crap about the community, we wouldn't be writing open source software. If we didn't care about the users, we wouldn't release our software to them. We wouldn't have a bug tracker, forums, and all the other things that we do and maintain solely for the community. I didn't doubt Gentoo attitude towards community. This is why statements like the one above strike me as exceedingly out of place. To phrase it in another manner that might make more sense, any given developer is going to be more interested in fixing/changing what is important or interesting to them than what some group of users wants them to fix/change. This is an attempt to make sense of the statement, which, interpreted this way is absolutely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Love, H -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 this mailing list and the proposed changes. If you don't like those proposed changes, please think it through and make alternative suggestions. The original proposed idea: * Make -dev a moderated mailing list, imposing a delay on all emails sent by non-developers and adding devs to that same list as needed. All emails should be of a development nature and should stay on topic. Devs retain the right to discard moderated emails if they are off topic or inappropriate. Devs found to be abusing this privilege would undergo review by devrel for further action. Devs would be required to be on this list. * Make a new mailing list for the off topic conversations to go to. Not a requirement for devs to join but a place to continue on a topic that really isnt development related. I really don't think anyone on council honestly believes that there are no good alternative ideas out there so the we as the community need to come up with those alternatives. Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 real topic at hand is about this mailing list and the proposed changes. If you don't like those proposed changes, please think it through and make alternative suggestions. The original proposed idea: * Make -dev a moderated mailing list, imposing a delay on all emails sent by non-developers and adding devs to that same list as needed. All emails should be of a development nature and should stay on topic. Devs retain the right to discard moderated emails if they are off topic or inappropriate. Devs found to be abusing this privilege would undergo review by devrel for further action. Devs would be required to be on this list. * Make a new mailing list for the off topic conversations to go to. Not a requirement for devs to join but a place to continue on a topic that really isnt development related. I really don't think anyone on council honestly believes that there are no good alternative ideas out there so the we as the community need to come up with those alternatives. Stopping or postponing technical posts on -dev will always be counter productive. Just create a topic in another list (-politics sounds a good one), forward all further responses there and if necessary create a new post to -dev to carry on the original discussion. The people involved in the -politics discussion can then carry it on somewhere else. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 sends his email, time period expires and no one booted it, so the email rolls through) For what it's worth, _IF_ this proposal goes through I'd strongly prefer that mode of operation, so that moderation can't become a limiting factor. Marius PS: Am I the only one who missed both reminders for the meeting? No, I missed them and the meeting as well:-( Before I recently joined the council I was against implementing the Proctors but now that we they apparently have been disbanded I think we're better off with an open -dev than some form of moderation. Flamefest contributors should be temporarily blacklisted. We can have a -dev-announce or -dev-info for devs that don't want to wade through all the mails here on -dev. We still need -core for private communications and need input on -dev from non-devs. As a very busy person I wouldn't want the extra burden of moderating emails to -dev. /me smacks himself for missing the meeting -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen Gentoo Linux Security Team -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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
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 between SNR and dev - dev and dev - world.) And you're right that this is something that is a result of the organisation growing. And so the question we must face is _how_ do we want it to grow. At the moment gentoo-dev is a one big noisy room forum. This is seen as a problem Propose solutions have included: 1) The Let's divide up the room solution - (and so we have proposals for gentoo-politics, gentoo-flamewar and other more specialised fora) 2) The Let's reduce the people in the room solution (which is what the OP's porposal is in essence) The first doesn't work because it's well nigh impossible to enforce what is on or off topic. The second solution begs the question of who do we let in the room? I submit to you that demarcating based on dev status is a Bad Idea. Some devs make the room less productive, some non-devs would make the room more productive. Unfortunately, demarcation of insiders and outsiders by any other means would be arbitrary. We arrive at the the third solution 3) People in the room can choose to take part in some conversations and ignore others as they see fit. This is basically the first two solutions implemented personally rather than globally. It's easily implemented through filters and sheer common sense. Oh, and it's also the status quo. W. PS. My heart rate and the alarm bells of being close to repeating myself indicate that I'm close to being fuel for flame here. Please excuse if I don't continue to post. Not being rude, just exercising some of that common sense. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway) but that's a path to cross later. We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. --taco 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. 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. what gentoo needs in my opinion is a clear structure, strict and unmistakable rules about what $dev may do and what $dev must not do, and ways to enforce these rules; this, and not moderating or restricting communication channels, would improve the way people are working together. as this may be my last post - and it seems to fit in quite nicely - i also want to say: gentoo's problem is not that ciaranm is a troll. the problem is that ciaranm is not a troll. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 completely misunderstanding. This is not a blanket silencing of any non-dev on the list. This is simply delaying the posting of messages from non-devs (and even devs that have improperly moderated in the past). If nobody moderates a particular message to the list within a set amount of time, the message passes through. Making the list moderated isn't the same as making a channel moderated on IRC. Anyone will still be able to speak, just with a slight delay, which allows us to maintain a good signal-to-noise ratio, and hopefully prevent re-occurrences of some of the nastier flamewars we've seen on the list lately. 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 throw in the occassional comment. The comments themselves are reduced in their relevance or impact because by the time they are heard, the conversation has moved on. In effect, it's a ban: at the very least a two-tier system demarcated along ill-chosen lines (dev / non-dev). Calling the proposal a ban is not misunderstanding - it's simply foresight. At the very least, this is exactly the sort of reaction you get when you exercise poor change management in a context where all participants (dev and non-dev) are heavily invested in the success of the whole. W. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 -project as a place for interaction with the community. Wouldn't that be, uh, -user? No because that's where people go for help. Or to discuss usage of Gentoo. -project would be for people or etc looking to contribute to the Gentoo project. Development and etc for anyone outside of the Gentoo project :) 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. Correct me if I'm reading you wrong but you seem, in your choice of words, to be relegating non-devs to being outside of the Gentoo project. And that is exactly the attitude we need to steer clear of, and exactly the DNA that this proposal would inject. I love/admire/adore/have great gratitude for our developers. They are certainly part of this project. But, even as a lowly user - I am also. Or perhaps I've just been reading too much Marx... W. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 forgetting list names for a second. Put the problem another way. There is no list at the moment, internal developers could use to communicate only with other internal developers. Sure we could use -core, but that's more for private stuff. Devs might want to interact directly with other devs, without any outside input. But do it in a transparent manner to keep the community informed and a part of the process. Just not a part with input. That does not mean the community is excluded. It's just sometimes you can have to many opinions, and the ones a times that matter the most are the ones actually doing the work. Which in turn become responsible for it. Correct me if I'm reading you wrong but you seem, in your choice of words, to be relegating non-devs to being outside of the Gentoo project. And that is exactly the attitude we need to steer clear of, and exactly the DNA that this proposal would inject. It's just levels of separation as the organization grows. It's not an attitude of separation, it's organization. It's not meant personally. Fact is there are those inside the project and those outside. That's not a good or bad thing, just how things are. There is no means for those inside to work directly with each others without outside influence. Not that the outside influence is not wanted, that's not the point at all. It's purely about focus. If we see a problem say on -dev, in the future. We know that's an internal problem devs are trying to resolve or etc. Likely to get more focus and/or prioritization. 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 :) Many will admit there are big problems now. This is just one attempt, one way to address it. I love/admire/adore/have great gratitude for our developers. They are certainly part of this project. But, even as a lowly user - I am also. FYI, every developer was a user at some point. In many ways they still are. This by no means is intended to diminish, cut off, control, etc any user input. That would effectively cut off any future recruiting efforts. Which is not the idea at all. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
-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 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 one. If you simply don't like disagreement, then please be clear about that. Why is it that everyone always assumes everything the Council does is out to get Ciaran rather than something we see as a good global solution to our current problems? Well, it would be great if the council can clearly outline what exactly our current problems are. Maybe if you presented those problems and then presented the proposed solutions to them, things would be easier to understand? Here's a little hint for all of you conspiracy theorists out there. If all we wanted was to get rid of Ciaran, we'd just have a fucking vote to get rid of Ciaran and make all of this *SO* much simpler on ourselves. This is again a disparaging and unhealthy way to have a discussion. I'm going to request that if you will respond to my notes, please do so with some modicum of civility and respect. If you find yourself unable to do so, then please do not respond to me at all. We're trying to solve the problem of people, *ALL* people, treating each other like complete crap on our lists. The problem has been an issue of discipline. We've simply got too many people who are too scared to take any actions to resolve these problems. Why do you think Developer Relations has all of these procedures and policies for retiring developers? Is it because we need all of that to determine if someone has crossed the line? No. It's because we have a large number of developers (or possibly even just a very vocal minority) who complain about every single damn thing anyone ever does and it has been much simpler to make up these ridiculous guidelines and rules to follow in an attempt to curb the dissenters than it is to just deal with them. Well, your own method of responding to my note is a good example of treating others like crap. How do we solve that? The problem with moderation is that nobody censors speech with which they agree, but quick to censor that with which they don't. So, here we have an example of one of the possible problems that you alluded to earlier: a vocal minority unable to pick its battles, and which engages in endless nitpicking. Why not just have the fucking vote to get rid of [them] and make all of this *SO* much simpler on ourselves then? Why should the vast majority of people on this list have to pay for what is, evidently, a minority? If, on the other hand, it's not a minority, then doesn't that indicate that the issue is on a deeper level? And if so, wouldn't it be more prudent to try and solve that one, instead? I say drop the rules to something simple that makes sense, boot the troublemakers, and ignore the dissenters. I'll gladly help anyone make up any procmail recipes they need to filter their mail. Let's get back to developing and leave the politics to Obama and Hillary. This is a little worrisome, you know. Perhaps you didn't mean this set of statements to sound as all-encompassing as all that. Isn't dissent and disagreement the result of differing points of view, which could actually benefit Gentoo? 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 moot. Thanks, Seemant Regards, - -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6-ecc01.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGmSCmQa6M3+I///cRAkgdAJ9iEiEccwXHhpobT30s7k8CTvf8JACdGMgd 1flKq6L+B4LhqrMnx9Zveic= =qIVf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 intended to solve is that -dev is too high-volume. This solution requires people to actually put MORE effort into reading -dev than they previously did. No one is going to actually do any monitoring, so all you've done is made posts from non-dev accounts time delayed. Why? I suppose the problem is high-volume and excessive flaming/trolling/OT. The proposed solution asks that every developer take an active role, yes, so that could easily equal more work - but I have little doubts that there are developers that will take an interest in doing it. However, all that aside, here is another way this change could be implemented: -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 developers. -dev (no preference for the name) would be for development discussion for devs and non-devs alike. everyone would all start out on a whitelist. any developer could opt to move a dev or non-dev to the moderated list (meaning their emails would be delayed allowing for moderation or simple release after a given time period). The check and balance for this would be that if any developer was found to be moderating someone unnecessarily, that developer themself would be moved to the moderated list by devrel for a time period without any access rights to change anything further themselves. Repeat offenders would be reviewed by devrel for further action if needed. this list would be required for all developers. I dont think for a moment that it is only non-devs causing this excessive amount of email which often results in flaming/trolling. I do agree that everyone should be bound by the same rules. Thoughts? -- Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 developers. -dev (no preference for the name) would be for development discussion for devs and non-devs alike. everyone would all start out on a whitelist. any developer could opt to move a dev or non-dev to the moderated list (meaning their emails would be delayed allowing for moderation or simple release after a given time period). The check and balance for this would be that if any developer was found to be moderating someone unnecessarily, that developer themself would be moved to the moderated list by devrel for a time period without any access rights to change anything further themselves. Repeat offenders would be reviewed by devrel for further action if needed. this list would be required for all developers. I agree w/ that. I dont think for a moment that it is only non-devs causing this excessive amount of email which often results in flaming/trolling. I do agree that everyone should be bound by the same rules. Thoughts? -- Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author -- ,-. | Dawid Węgliński | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cla @ irc.freenode.net | | GPG: 295E72D9 | `-' signature.asc Description: To jest część listu podpisana cyfrowo
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. I'm not keen on this idea. I like the traditional unmoderated mailing list scheme used in open source projects everywhere, including this one at present. The Gentoo development community is much more closed than the development communities of most other open source projects (for good reasons), and I wouldn't like to see it close up further. Moderation would be used to exclude certain discussion, but the real solution for that is just to teach people to ignore the idiots. (yep, not easy in some cases!) I'm also not sure that the proposal solves any problems -- I glanced over the last few weeks of mail and didn't see any that I would reject from a moderation queue. 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 gentoo-dev for development topics only, and have another list for the rest. But, I suspect we'd come back to the same problem on both lists, where some people are too keen to talk and deviate too far away from technical discussion. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 own little contributions here and there. I guess that's why I'm speaking at the Gentoo UK conference tomorrow. There is no point in being subscribed to a community list if you can't participate in the discussions. I'm with Brian. If this goes through, I shall be moving on. On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 17:43 -0400, 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. Hear, hear. On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 15:43 -0700, Chrissy Fullam wrote: The moderation of -dev would be done by any developer who saw fit to release the email sent from a non-dev. The world over, compulsory moderation of otherwise public lists stifles conversation. Typically it is weeks, not hours, before someone gets around to glancing at the awaiting-approval queue, with the result that even if a message is approved it appears in the thread long after the issue was raised and far to late to be a useful contribution to the discussion. Open Source is about lowering barriers to entry and encouraging broader participation. You don't want to go this way. AfC London -- Andrew Frederick Cowie Managing Director Operational Dynamics Consulting, Pty Ltd Sydney+61 2 9977 6866 New York +1 646 472 5054 Toronto +1 647 477 5603 London+44 207 1019201 We are an operations engineering consultancy focusing on strategy, organizational architecture, systems review, and change management procedures: enabling successful use of open source in mission A. critical enterprises, worldwide. http://www.operationaldynamics.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. [ Long rant ahead, perhaps some of which may or may not quite as accurate as intended since I've not been following Gentoo's development as closely as I should have over the past few months. ] 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. 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) of this damage to Gentoo, we are further restricting its development. I fail to see how such restriction will aide us in any way. We already have the gentoo-core mailing list, and anything needing to be kept internal to developer-only discussion should be sent there. Yes, stuff is leaked from time to time, but Gentoo's developer handbook [1] explicitly states that gentoo-core is to be used for internal discussions. Thus, those who leak information that is not to be made public should be disciplined accordingly. Instead, we (the entire developer community) simply continue to let things of this nature occur, and persist in adding layers of bureaucracy in order to pretend to ourselves that this is much less harmful to us than it verily is. Yes, that's what this amounts to: bureaucracy. We are simply adding more process and protocol to the posting by non-developers. How can we say that devs won't discard what may have otherwise been great discussions of introspection or other aspects of our development? How can we ensure that developers with personal vendettas [2] won't use this moderation power as a form of attack against the developer in question or the community as a whole? Wait, what's this: Oh I see. We discipline them. What does this accomplish? It adds another point of reason for possible disciplinary action at the expense of furthering development and hindering discussion. As a moderator of Gentoo's forums for nearly two years (and a moderator on a few other forums since about three years prior to this), I know from experience that such moderation should be in terms of a blacklist - whereby all posts and content are accepted and those which violate the rules disciplined. Having a whitelist - where only permitted content is accepted and others moderated in - is far too troublesome for this. Aside from the issues I noted above, who's to say which posts are good or bad in the first place? Who will ensure that posts are moderated in a timely and reasonable manner? Gentoo's goal of being community-driven was in our reach once.. Nay, we _were_ a community when I first started with Gentoo several years ago now: users, developers, infrastructure hackers, designers - nearly *everyone* was contributing back to the community in a way: mailing list or forums support, bug reporting/triaging, ebuild submission, et al. Now, where do we stand? That community has fallen so much that we need another group (User Reps.) to act as an intermediary between them. More and more people are interested in development of Gentoo. They _want_ to help develop Gentoo or contribute to it in a significant way; yet all of this is just one more item to preclude such people from their contributions. Let me repeat that just to make it perfectly clear: WE ARE PUSHING AWAY POTENTIAL STAFF. But I digress.. In effect, you (the devs) are now telling others (potential contributors) what we can and cannot say on the list. While I understand that nothing about Gentoo grants me a protected right to freedom of speech or expression in any way, this reeks of heavy censorship to me. I, for one, will personally stand against any such action on this list. If it comes down to it, I will personally approve _any_ non-spam posting to this list by _anyone_ for the sake of civil disobedience. I encourage others to take similar action. This type of administration cannot be allowed to establish itself as proper or just in any way. [1] http://gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=1chap=3 [2] Don't disagree with this outright: I know many, including myself, have a strong mutual dislike with one or more developers from this and other distributions though we may refrain from admittance thereto. It's part of our human psyche and is a normal aspect of anyone's emotions with regards to social interactions. -- Peter Gordon (codergeek42) Gentoo Forums Global Moderator GnuPG Public Key
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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) of this damage to Gentoo, we are further restricting its development. I retract this comment in its entirety. Soon after I sent this email, I spoke with some other devs who have confirmed that the lists and whatnot have been polite for the most part as of recently. The rest of my mail still holds... -- Peter Gordon (codergeek42) Gentoo Forums Global Moderator GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint: DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479 My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 rolls through) ++1, from a lurking AT -- Togge (amd64 arch tester) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 a frenzy about things we don't like, and demand that something must be done and won't someone please think of the children which brings this sort of action about. 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 thrill of someone raising a pointless argument and picking on ridiculously petty details is the satisfaction gained from others taking that stupidity seriously and wasting their (and everyone else's) time with it. So I say to you (the developer community): stop the insanity. This whole business of whitelisting is rather a ridiculous notion, that is not scalable and serves only to create distance between those with @gentoo.org addresses and those without. As a result, the @gentoo.org island isolates itself even further than it is already. That in turn, only worsens whatever problems we perceive. 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. You know what? The fact that Gentoo as an entity still reacts to one person this way means, in all but name, that Ciaran actually is the de-facto lead developer of Gentoo. 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). Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. Personally, I dislike this idea (I tend to agree w/ Seemant's sentiments, if not quite his extrapolations). That said, I'll just subscribe to -project instead of -dev, so I don't see that it's going to affect me very much. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpiSvLESccDC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 stages of life. 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. What makes a developer only -dev list any different than developers only having a voice on #gentoo-dev? -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 not focused right now. Maybe it's because everyone is feeding the trolls instead of developing. In my eyes, Gentoo already offers a better solution than other distros and thus my business uses it and has done for a good few years now. We're very happy with Gentoo right now. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 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 not focused right now. What makes a developer only -dev list any different than developers only having a voice on #gentoo-dev? The former is where development discussion is supposed to take place. The latter is a social convenience. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 is supposed to take place. The latter is a social convenience. For some. Most all of my development communication is primarily done via IRC. Email is rarely used, and from what I have seen else where. This seems to be the main trend IMHO. Granted for big issues discussed over time, the ML is a better resource than IRC. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 I'm not yet in a position of wanting to become a dev, I don't use IRC. Also, I find e-mails a lot more convenient when time is a limiting factor. The fact is that I joined this list with the intention of asking whether someone can help me out with a couple of reports I posted in bugs.gentoo.org such as http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182544 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174588 I already contacted jokey (Markus) several months ago via e-mail and we agreed that he would have setup proxy maintenance for the shorewall ebuilds so that I could contribute patches and learn from his suggestions. We never got to do anything because we simply stopped e-mailing. So basically, I'd like to take advantage of this list before I get excluded and ask anyone if it's possible for a plain user like me to make occasional package-specific contributions in the form of proxy maintenance or the likes. I also feel that an open dev mailing list can be useful for contributing users to learn from experienced devs a few things that aren't always obvious (eg. a recent post titled cyclic dependencies). If you think I should direct my queries to another list then please let me know. Markus, if you have a chance to read this then I'd be glad to resume our e-mail interchange, if you're still willing to. If you're overloaded with work then maybe someone else could help out? Thank you all for making Gentoo what it is. And sorry for the long post. Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545433 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 developers only having a voice on #gentoo-dev? The former is where development discussion is supposed to take place. The latter is a social convenience. For some. Most all of my development communication is primarily done via IRC. Email is rarely used, and from what I have seen else where. This seems to be the main trend IMHO. Granted for big issues discussed over time, the ML is a better resource than IRC. 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 relevant-to-irrelevant ratio. To me, it makes no difference whether the traffic that I don't care about is spam/trolls or just discussion of another project. So I'd support -dev being for coordination of core development and -project being for other things, so that people can read all of -dev easily and simply pay attention to only what they want to see on -project. But I see no reason to moderate either -- #-dev is moderated because IRC is an easy medium to disrupt. It's a lot harder to wander on to a mailing list and start trolling, and it's easier to block. Just my $0.02, Thomas Tuttle -- Thomas Tuttle - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ttuttle.net/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 thrill of someone raising a pointless argument and picking on ridiculously petty details is the satisfaction gained from others taking that stupidity seriously and wasting their (and everyone else's) time with it. 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 our standards when someone violates them. Thanks, Donnie 1. http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=788CF452-E7F2-99DF-3EBC599C3A9F1C6FchanID=sa003 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183875 Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 other mails this late in the game...) To my recollection, the recent flame wars have for the most part been between devs and non-devs. Now, this proposed moderation only addresses one half (the non-dev side) of that problem, by moderating it away. I personally think that a better solution would be to address the @gentoo.org side of the problem, since that is, in theory, something that we already have control over via devrel. If we have our own house in order and provide leadership and direction on the list by not replying to personal attacks (or perceived personal attacks) with more personal attacks (or perceived personal attacks), and always keeping our side of the technical discussions purely technical and non-sarcastic, I really believe that flame wars will just flicker and die. Maybe this just means that we need more people to report developers acting badly to devrel. In closing, I also disagree with the Moderation Proposal. I think that it may stop the flame wars at the cost of stopping valuable discussions. -- Jim Ramsay Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 gentoo-dev to gentoo-dev-info. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183875 My vote: 1) Keep gentoo-core as-is 2) Do not block or moderate gentoo-dev and do not create more lists 3) Allow policy for devs to use procmail to filter on subject line I just think that many of the proposals to solve this are making things more complicated, messy, inelegant, or are just fostering alienation/censorship. If the problem is sifting through too much noise, just make policy allowing #3 above. For example, devs could filter subjects starting with Re: if desired. Or we could choose keywords like Off-topic: or Rant: that would could be filtered. If a dev using a filter wants to see replies or other filtered mail, he/she can go read the mail list archive. -Joe -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 really feel that strongly about it, feel free to leave. Better yet, how about you move to France with the rest of the pussies.. (obligatory South Park quote) 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 see as positive. I've grown sick of all this talk and would really like to see some action from the peanut gallery. I know this might be too much to ask from the armchair Council, but one can dream, can't they? 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) of this damage to Gentoo, we are further restricting its development. Actually, I tend to agree with you. The problem is that we really don't have a way to say that Gentoo, as a project, has decided that we don't want these people and get rid of them. Rather, we have these policies that tend to protect the guilty and harm the innocent. We've become much too bureaucratic. How about as an outgoing final act for the current Council, we just ban all the asshats from the list (via our own discretion) and we just see how much nicer things are in the month before the next Council has their meeting. I'm willing to bet the new Council wouldn't reverse any of our bans/whatever and we wouldn't need to enact this sort of crap. It would be much easier if we could just be like hey buddy, you're a dick... we don't want you here and we got rid of those people. Sure, they'll turn up somewhere else, but do I really give a crap if some guy decides to start flaming on some barely-used list or even outside Gentoo's infrastructure about how much we suck or how unfairly we treated them? We get enough of that crap as it is now, and I don't see it impacting us much, if at all. What *does* impact us severely is the perception that we're not doing anything about our problems. I would much rather do something and be wrong than do nothing. Doing nothing is *guaranteed* to not solve anything. snip a bunch of crap about Gentoo dying like FreeBSD I, for one, will personally stand against any such action on this list. If it comes down to it, I will personally approve _any_ non-spam posting to this list by _anyone_ for the sake of civil disobedience. I encourage others to take similar action. This type of administration cannot be allowed to establish itself as proper or just in any way. Umm... so you just volunteered to do what we *want* you to do? Good job with that civil disobedience there, buddy. :P Can we get some more civil disobedience from the rest of you? It will definitely make this project a success and, I think, improve the general attitude on this list. That's right, folks! We need more civil disobedience in Gentoo! -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 does is out to get Ciaran rather than something we see as a good global solution to our current problems? Here's a little hint for all of you conspiracy theorists out there. If all we wanted was to get rid of Ciaran, we'd just have a fucking vote to get rid of Ciaran and make all of this *SO* much simpler on ourselves. We're trying to solve the problem of people, *ALL* people, treating each other like complete crap on our lists. The problem has been an issue of discipline. We've simply got too many people who are too scared to take any actions to resolve these problems. Why do you think Developer Relations has all of these procedures and policies for retiring developers? Is it because we need all of that to determine if someone has crossed the line? No. It's because we have a large number of developers (or possibly even just a very vocal minority) who complain about every single damn thing anyone ever does and it has been much simpler to make up these ridiculous guidelines and rules to follow in an attempt to curb the dissenters than it is to just deal with them. I say drop the rules to something simple that makes sense, boot the troublemakers, and ignore the dissenters. I'll gladly help anyone make up any procmail recipes they need to filter their mail. Let's get back to developing and leave the politics to Obama and Hillary. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 see as positive. I've grown sick of all this talk and would really like to see some action from the peanut gallery. I know this might be too much to ask from the armchair Council, but one can dream, can't they? Perhaps the Council should stop going out of their way to screw around with people when they do do something then. They could, for example, stop trying to impose arbitrary, meaningless changes to which version control system PMS uses (an issue which is of no technical relevance). Perhaps that might stop dissuading contributions from people who can't be bothered having to deal with silly political meddling from a Council which is supposed to be providing technical assistance... Similarly, they could help take care of all the silly arguments that are being foisted off against attempts to provide a decent, adaptable replacement for Gentoo's biggest stalling point. What *does* impact us severely is the perception that we're not doing anything about our problems. I would much rather do something and be wrong than do nothing. Doing nothing is *guaranteed* to not solve anything. Perhaps you should do something about something that really is a problem then, instead of wasting everyone's time on irrelevant issues and blatantly false copyright claims. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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], [3] and [4] what you had in mind as setting a good example? [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=177424#c13 [2]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174184#c3 [3]: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_145909.xml [4]: Your recent post about going off to France -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 our standards when someone violates them. This was actually one of my primary motivators for calling for the disbanding of the proctors, as KingTaco and I had already had several discussions on the new list and I felt having a larger pool of potential proctors helped us out much more than the small group ever could do. Plus, the Council failed the proctors. I don't mean by disbanding them. Hopefully, they'll see in time that it was for the best. We failed them by not providing a better direction and clearer goals *before* we sent them on their way. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 can do to improve a situation you see as bad for Gentoo with one you see as positive. 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? Can you explain to me how giving the devs _more_ work to do is going to help Gentoo when getting user contributions, bugfixes, ebuilds etc incorporated in a timely fashion is already one of the largest problems IMO? Seriously, call us all childish if you want, but you need to recognize that some of us users are seriously concerned about being alienated due to this proposal. If you insist on shutting out users like this you are basically giving us all the finger. I would expect this treatment from a SuperMegaCorp software vendor, not from Gentoo. If I am still not clear, here is my opinion in one sentence: This is a very bad move which will do little but severely reduce the amount of goodwill from the user-contributors, and make it de facto more difficult, time consuming, and painful to contribute to Gentoo. -d -- darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org ...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected... - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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, mm'kay. +1 To new people who never knew of the -dev list as it is now, and start by joining the -project list. I fail to see how it will make much if any diff. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 up the list attitude? Absolutely not. We very much do want to hear. But in a place specific to just that :) Can you explain to me how giving the devs _more_ work to do is going to help Seems like just the effort of forwarding an email from one list to another. Not much effort there. Gentoo when getting user contributions, bugfixes, ebuilds etc incorporated in a timely fashion is already one of the largest problems IMO? Exactly, your pointing out one of the potential largest negative issues around Gentoo. Here's a possible solution. Let's not damn it to much before at least giving it a go. Seriously, call us all childish if you want Poor choice of words or analogies maybe. but you need to recognize that some of us users are seriously concerned about being alienated due to this proposal. If you insist on shutting out users like this you are basically giving us all the finger. I would expect this treatment from a SuperMegaCorp software vendor, not from Gentoo. You could equate it to growth. But it's not about alienation at all. It's about focus, and only effects those that know things as are. 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. I think all will find it beneficial in the long run. If we give it a chance and some time. Should allow for better focus and greater productivity on both front, dev - dev, devs - world. In the end I put it to growth. So we can focus and make things better all around. Not due to negativity, or etc. Even if everything is all positive. If volume on any list gets to a point where it's productivity declines. Action should be taken. Which isn't motivated by anything negative. I have unsubscribed from lists in the past due to the amount of volume and hardly being able to follow. Pure positive technical development and etc discussions. Just to much ;) -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 Gentoo. For my own part, I have used this distro for years and never subscribed until all this bad press, and never posted until now that I see a potentially positive move coming under so much attack. Jim Ramsay wrote: To my recollection, the recent flame wars have for the most part been between devs and non-devs. It's a funny old thing because I wanted to say exactly this, but to make the opposite point! After reading for a few months, I am shocked, not just at the way that some people are behaving - there will always be bad behaviour, but that non-devs are allowed to come here and gratuitously insult developers with apparent total immunity. Developers are subject to bans and forced vacations from the project, as they should be. But from my observation all the recent flamewars have either had non-devs at the center of them, or been outright started by them, and there is nothing anybody seems to be able to do about it. This is a ridiculous situation that should never be tolerated (and would not be in a healthier project) and it's perfectly reasonable to me that the council wants to address it. I think the heart of the problem is people assuming they have rights that they should not have. The only people who should have a RIGHT to post to this list are developers, and for everyone else it should be considered a privilege - one that can be easily revoked. There's no reason why a project has any obligation to create a mailing list that their developers are required to use in the course of their duties AND where they are subject to abuse from random people. For the people who are saying if this change goes through, I'm out, I don't think that's helpful. It's natural for some non-dev contributors to feel that their contributions are being minimized by a move like this. But I think it has to be acknowledged that a change is necessary, and you should instead join the discussion about how this is actually going to be done. I for one think a blanket ban of non-devs from posting is going a bit far, especially since I'm sure devs value many of their comments. But that's just it - it should be up to the developers whom they want (and more importantly don't want) to interact with. I would propose a plan whereby non-devs can be removed by a vote from some set number of devs. Say, if 5 or 6 developers do not want a person posting on the list any more then that person ought to be banned. I think most contributors would not have to worry about this happening to them. That's just one suggestion, and I'm sure the council is open to hearing alternatives from others. Chris -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 interaction with the community. Wouldn't that be, uh, -user? No because that's where people go for help. Or to discuss usage of Gentoo. -project would be for people or etc looking to contribute to the Gentoo project. Development and etc for anyone outside of the Gentoo project :) -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 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 rolls through) This means that non-dev emails will still be sent to the list, just at a delay. This same delay can and will be exercised against developers if the developer demonstrates a justification for it. This also means that non-dev input will be accepted and viewed as it always has, the only change is that there is a delay. Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 is planning on banning users - Unmoderated mails will be auto-accepted after some timeout - Whatever delay is decided can be imposed on developers, too, if they give reason for it to be enforced on them (read, repeat offenders) - This includes myself and the other Council members - All developers will be able to moderate and all moderation is logged - Developers/users will be able to appeal unfair moderation to devrel, so action can be taken against people who moderate badly That pretty much covers most of the assumptions people are making. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 last meeting. Some points of contention that nobody seems to be getting: - Nobody is planning on banning users - Unmoderated mails will be auto-accepted after some timeout - Whatever delay is decided can be imposed on developers, too, if they give reason for it to be enforced on them (read, repeat offenders) - This includes myself and the other Council members - All developers will be able to moderate and all moderation is logged - Developers/users will be able to appeal unfair moderation to devrel, so action can be taken against people who moderate badly That pretty much covers most of the assumptions people are making. Yeah, it covers almost everything I just suggested, except one thing. Users who consistently contribute well, or are arch testers or other relevant official contributors, should be able to skip the delay, provided they continue to contribute positively. Thanks, Thomas Tuttle -- Thomas Tuttle - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ttuttle.net/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 of current changes (-project for instance). As of late, it seems more traffic has been generated due to non-development threads such as this than any other topic -- take that as you will. As for some very brief points, I have a few: * Whether it's intented or not, the negative perception being projected on non-devs will be there. Call it what you will, but essentially they'll be outsiders. * This original thread seems to be an attempt to lessen damaging posts to -dev and yet does not address the possibility that these posts may come from current devs. Chris Gianelloni seems to have modified the thread to include dev moderation with the possibility of delays being applied to them via policy. * While no delay duration has been set, I think one of the problems here (again) is perception. Currently it's the idea of quick feedback from the source. * This sounds like a boring, mundane, time consuming task to place on all developers. As with most things, only a few will take the time to do their duty as per policy dictates. This either means we'll have developer-devs doing paper work or non-developer-devs in a developer position doing paper work -- an overly simplistic view. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 one. If you simply don't like disagreement, then please be clear about that. Why is it that everyone always assumes everything the Council does is out to get Ciaran rather than something we see as a good global solution to our current problems? Well, it would be great if the council can clearly outline what exactly our current problems are. Maybe if you presented those problems and then presented the proposed solutions to them, things would be easier to understand? Here's a little hint for all of you conspiracy theorists out there. If all we wanted was to get rid of Ciaran, we'd just have a fucking vote to get rid of Ciaran and make all of this *SO* much simpler on ourselves. This is again a disparaging and unhealthy way to have a discussion. I'm going to request that if you will respond to my notes, please do so with some modicum of civility and respect. If you find yourself unable to do so, then please do not respond to me at all. We're trying to solve the problem of people, *ALL* people, treating each other like complete crap on our lists. The problem has been an issue of discipline. We've simply got too many people who are too scared to take any actions to resolve these problems. Why do you think Developer Relations has all of these procedures and policies for retiring developers? Is it because we need all of that to determine if someone has crossed the line? No. It's because we have a large number of developers (or possibly even just a very vocal minority) who complain about every single damn thing anyone ever does and it has been much simpler to make up these ridiculous guidelines and rules to follow in an attempt to curb the dissenters than it is to just deal with them. Well, your own method of responding to my note is a good example of treating others like crap. How do we solve that? The problem with moderation is that nobody censors speech with which they agree, but quick to censor that with which they don't. So, here we have an example of one of the possible problems that you alluded to earlier: a vocal minority unable to pick its battles, and which engages in endless nitpicking. Why not just have the fucking vote to get rid of [them] and make all of this *SO* much simpler on ourselves then? Why should the vast majority of people on this list have to pay for what is, evidently, a minority? If, on the other hand, it's not a minority, then doesn't that indicate that the issue is on a deeper level? And if so, wouldn't it be more prudent to try and solve that one, instead? I say drop the rules to something simple that makes sense, boot the troublemakers, and ignore the dissenters. I'll gladly help anyone make up any procmail recipes they need to filter their mail. Let's get back to developing and leave the politics to Obama and Hillary. This is a little worrisome, you know. Perhaps you didn't mean this set of statements to sound as all-encompassing as all that. Isn't dissent and disagreement the result of differing points of view, which could actually benefit Gentoo? 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 moot. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 moot. In the June meeting, I repeated my opinion that _every_ member of the list (but esp. the developers) should strive to hold themselves to FreeNode's Catalyst (http://freenode.net/catalysts.shtml) ideal. This was related to the original goals of the CoC in the first place. The CoC lost sight of the aim to get Gentoo to function better. Whatever the council has tried, it seems that general history is being repeated in microcosm with Gentoo: You cannot enforce morality nor ethics. At the same time, you cannot remove any that disrupt the community. This includes both - Forcibly: There are plenty that believe dropping Mr McCreesh and Mr Long would improve the perceived health of the list. The opponents of such call this censorship. - and 'not feeding the trolls' because as long as they have an interest in Gentoo itself, they will remain (for the same reason that developers stay). Thus the council (both the present one, as well as the incoming council) stand between a rock and a very hard place. They stand charged with improving the perception of Gentoo, improving communication on the lists AND not alienating any part of the community. Gentoo's principles are that of an open community. Many of us developers joined (esp. the older ones) because we had an itch of our own to scratch, and as that itch moved around within Gentoo, so did we. I was invited to join Gentoo for working on ufed and the QA level of use.desc. After those, I picked up maintaining MySQL and PHP, because the previous maintainers (woodchip and rphillips respectively) had gone. From thence, I created the first PHP team (with coredumb and stuart), and started drifted around. I've been drifting since, as my own needs and itches take me to various realms of Gentoo. The only major areas that I haven't made some impact in have been games, GNOME, KDE, and GUI apps (reflecting that I spend most of my time on a terminal). It used to be a rite of passage that a new developer would break something because they didn't realize one of the side-effects of their actions (seemant has experience there, which lead to revdep-rebuild), and then helped to fix it up, better than it was before. One step backwards, two steps forward. Compare it to now, and I read things like bug #184597, and I am ashamed to see that 3 teams rebuffed a potential new developer. That degree of elitism just hurts. I understand Gentoo has always been a meritocracy, but it is an open one, that lets folk get started regardless. How do we get Gentoo back to where it was? That I cannot answer. But I will state, that while I am not running for a council position next year, I would like to remain with Gentoo a long time, even if it's just an lone developer, with no work in Infrastructure or any other leadership group (I'm in Infrastructure because my skills are helpful to them). 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 leave, the Fungi will win. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpbUNjhQYwzJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 discussion might well be moot. In the June meeting, I repeated my opinion that _every_ member of the list (but esp. the developers) should strive to hold themselves to FreeNode's Catalyst (http://freenode.net/catalysts.shtml) ideal. This was related to the original goals of the CoC in the first place. The CoC lost sight of the aim to get Gentoo to function better. Whatever the council has tried, it seems that general history is being repeated in microcosm with Gentoo: You cannot enforce morality nor ethics. At the same time, you cannot remove any that disrupt the community. This includes both - Forcibly: There are plenty that believe dropping Mr McCreesh and Mr Long would improve the perceived health of the list. The opponents of such call this censorship. - and 'not feeding the trolls' because as long as they have an interest in Gentoo itself, they will remain (for the same reason that developers stay). Good points from both Robin and Seemant, and I'm glad Robin brought up the fact that there are other trolls on the list, though more crude and less sophisticated in their approach. As we've seen, there are long-term and short-term folks on the list who have some interest in their heads, and that will also disrupt the community, regardless of whether forcible action is taken. Thus the council (both the present one, as well as the incoming council) stand between a rock and a very hard place. They stand charged with improving the perception of Gentoo, improving communication on the lists AND not alienating any part of the community. Alienation might happen regardless. It may not be a bad thing either; neither good nor bad, simply something that happens. There are polarizing issues plain and simple -- multiple package managers, PMS, creating the CoC and similar, anything from the last year. If you try to placate everyone, no one will end up happy and things grind to a halt. Compare it to now, and I read things like bug #184597, and I am ashamed to see that 3 teams rebuffed a potential new developer. That degree of elitism just hurts. I understand Gentoo has always been a meritocracy, but it is an open one, that lets folk get started regardless. I think the charge of elitism is neither fair nor accurate. It seems like simple smart decision-making: the teams have never had any prior experience with that developer, despite his request in the bug to join them. They haven't seen his technical skills. I know we wouldn't let anyone in the GDP unless we'd seen a history of valuable contributions and the candidate displayed considerable familiarity with GuideXML. It's not applying some arbitrary elitism; it's maintaining technical standards so that stuff doesn't break. How do we get Gentoo back to where it was? That I cannot answer. Where it was must be defined first. Where it was a year ago? Where it was when there were fewer people? The further back in time you go, the smaller the pool of users, developers, packages, and available tools technology. As more people showed up, more friction occurred. From what I've seen there's always some constant level of friction, however low it may ebb from time to time. I remember that within the last few months there have been a few low-level scattered queries about how would it work if some group of developers forked. The primary sentiment behind such an occurence would be to create a better (and smaller) community of developers and some kind of different structure that allows for proper self-policing. This sounds like what Gentoo may have been like when it was still relatively new -- if Gentoo was ever manageable, that is. Is a fork the solution to what you want? Who knows. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 leave, the Fungi
will win.
for (i = 0; i SOME_BIG_NUMBER; i++) {
plusplus();
}
--Kumba
--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead
Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere. --Elrond
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway) but that's a path to cross later. We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. --taco -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway) but that's a path to cross later. We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. Consider this my last post ever to gentoo-dev ML if this really goes through. Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute anything more. Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. What are the proposed guidelines for the different between -project and -dev? What goes where? -- Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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
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
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 that's being implemented merely because some people would like to be seen as doing something... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpLc7ZZONXht.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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. in addition the gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway) but that's a path to cross later. We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. Consider this my last post ever to gentoo-dev ML if this really goes through. Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute anything more. Regards, Bryan Østergaard And this lowly user will unsubscribe as well. What's the point in getting the emails if you are censored? I thought the proctors were supposed to keep this list on topic? Dale :-) :-) :-) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 ended. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the Why? Is it getting too much junk traffic? gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. Fine, but I don't understand why -dev would then have to be moderated. If -dev is for core Gentoo stuff, and -project is for more specific stuff or offshoots, why should one be moderated and the other not? This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway) but that's a path to cross later. How do you figure? If -dev takes on everything from -core, then the only purpose I can see for moderation is to squelch the opinions of non-devs when controversial issues are discussed. I can understand moderation if non-devs are getting in the way (although I don't see any evidence of that), but that would have nothing to do with -core. We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. I don't officially have input, but I think this is a bad idea, or should at least be presented along with some reasoning. -dev is the way a lot of people learn about Gentoo development, and it would be unfair to force people including devs-to-be to wait for someone to approve their posts. Consider this my last post ever to gentoo-dev ML if this really goes through. Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute anything more. He's got a point. And, as an arch tester, I'm going to be annoyed if one day I need to ask something here and my post is delayed or lost because I'm not a dev. -- Thomas Tuttle - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ttuttle.net/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 reasons. 1. It doesn't put responsibility for moderating messages in a timely fashion on anyone. Devs will want to hack, not moderate, and I worry that messages would get ignored. 2. It doesn't set a clear standard for what is acceptable or not. Some devs might moderate in questions/suggestions from non-devs willingly, while others might decide that they're getting in the way and moderate them out. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. What about devs who moderate *out good* posts? Do you have a way to make sure devs aren't trashing messages that others might find useful? I could see situations where a user or dev-to-be makes a suggestion or comment that is badly written, or not feasible in the dev's mind, or wrong to them in some other way, and the dev trashes it, figuring it's irrelevant to everyone. gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. Is there an official definition of the split between the two? Is -dev basically going to be core Gentoo devs collaborating on internal things that require coordination, and -project going to be where various projects get implemented? This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway) but that's a path to cross later. I'd cross it sooner, rather than later, because without moving -core's traffic to -dev, it will look like you're just excluding non-devs for no reason. If -dev becomes a place where devs truly need an uninterrupted place to discuss things, then you could fairly say that the devs need the moderation to work efficiently. Thanks again, Thomas Tuttle -- Thomas Tuttle - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ttuttle.net/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 arent supposed to speak unmoderatedly to -core, this should be an equally well solution, but it should create less noise (ie., people will less likely feel degraded etc). Though I'm not an insider when it comes to -core, I'd guess there is few need for non-public discussions, except for security reasons or similar. Anyway, I wouldnt name it -project but rather -public or -dev-open maybe. I find -project confusing. Besides all this: 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? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. This is an absolutely wonderful idea and I can't wait till we implement it. -- Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Linux -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 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. -- Thomas Tuttle - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ttuttle.net/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway) but that's a path to cross later. We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. --taco 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. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 against X, Y, Z who are of a different opinion. I submit a mail supporting XYZ, as soon as (s)he can A picks it up, sorts it out/deletes it/rates it irrelevant/whatever, and noone every notices? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
-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 ^ ^ - -- Jeffrey Gardner Gentoo Developer Public PGP Key ID: 4A5D8F23 hkp://pgpkeys.mit.edu -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGlqUViR2KxEpdjyMRAt9IAKC10FzPh3X99PFIKSLHsm6Xcj8IZACgqUw9 JalEfd766hvLbpW+PhSszPM= =c9u4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 communication (package retirement announcements, USE flag discussions, etc...) is moved to -core. If not, I don't see the point. Also I still think we need a private mailing list. Whether it's used often or not shouldn't be a metric for the decision. And if things get leaked out as Mike says, then it's an entirely different issue that deserves an entirely different type of resolution on a case by case basis involving the source of the leak, not the list. Denis. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 opinion. -- tomaw pgp0UnZh8Lq3W.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 moderation themselves. in addition the gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway) but that's a path to cross later. We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. --taco -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 -core be opened too? -- Krzysiek Pawlik nelchael at gentoo.org key id: 0xBC51 desktop-misc, desktop-dock, x86, java, apache, ppc... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 -core couldn't be applied retroactively. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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 moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway) but that's a path to cross later. We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. --taco 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 have to agree, the idea sounds simply like you want to rename -core to -dev and -dev to -project, with the moderation added to make it appear somewhat open. Marius -- Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
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
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 list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. This was discussed in June's council meeting, then brought back up at today's council meeting, and slotted for voting in next months meeting. I do not think one could consider it a knee jerk reaction when there is so much time between conception, discussion, and voting. Having been active in those meetings maybe this will clarify it some for others... this is what I derived of it: The -core mailing list is for information too sensitive to be sent to the public. Does this information stay confidential until it's appropriate release time, no not always, but it is based on a sound principle so the list stays. The -dev mailing list would be the list for development discussion. The reason it does not replace -core is because it would still be open to be viewed by the public. Many devs have stated that they do not wish to read -dev presently due to the quantity of off topic emails, or at least those that are not productive. These devs would be able to continue to read -dev and reduce the volume of email to wade through to only those pertinent to the topic at hand. Non-devs would still subscribe and post, but those posts must first be approved by ANY developer. The method of contact has not been documented/discussed, one could presume IRC or email or even that one of the hundreds of developers might be active at that moment and decide to release 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 rolls through) The -project mailing list would be the place for the unmoderated and potentially off topic correspondence. I don't think anyone is married to the name. It also is a required list for a dev to join. The moderation of -dev would be done by any developer who saw fit to release the email sent from a non-dev. The release of bad emails would be addressed by devrel. What makes an email bad would be decided based on the principles of the Code of Conduct. See http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml Hope this helps. Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
