Vapier wrote: [Fri Apr 07 2006, 07:00:22PM EDT]
> On Tuesday 04 April 2006 13:54, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > Vapier wrote: [Tue Apr 04 2006, 01:12:28AM EDT]
> > > the idea is that it's common sense and to need to vote on something
> > > like this seems asinine
> >
> > It might seem that way, but som
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 10:42, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Of course, the pretty thorough hashing that this current proposal is
> getting pretty much means that this time is much different than the
> last, and that I should probably just shut up now.
dont worry, i'm pretty sure just about everyone re
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 13:54, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Vapier wrote: [Tue Apr 04 2006, 01:12:28AM EDT]
> > the idea is that it's common sense and to need to vote on something
> > like this seems asinine
>
> It might seem that way, but something that is voted on and accepted
> has credibility. Some
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 15:34, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 April 2006 06:52, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > sorry, those last two paragraphs are covered elsewhere between infra and
> > evrel ... so the document should be considered without those last two
> > paragraphs
>
> This is what I'd li
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:35, Aron Griffis wrote:
>
> All of this is obvious, except for who is "we"?
>
This is obvious too. It is the community of gentoo developers.
And for the record I agree with stating that repeated distruptive
behaviour IS a threat to the stability and security of gentoo
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 00:28, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> Where is the good-will? Have we stopped trusting each other? If we do
> not trust each other, sincerely, I don't know what we are doing in here.
The full trust part was dropped at the moment the 51st developer was added.
Seriously, with t
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > This is what I'd like to see clarified. To me, only a decision of the
> > Council
> > may lead to such a "suspension", as it is the relevant _elected_ entity.
> > And
> > I hereby request to add a paragraph at least, stating
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 12:53 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > This is what I'd like to see clarified. To me, only a decision of the
> > Council
> > may lead to such a "suspension", as it is the relevant _elected_ entity.
> > And
> > I hereby request to add a paragraph at
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> This is what I'd like to see clarified. To me, only a decision of the Council
> may lead to such a "suspension", as it is the relevant _elected_ entity. And
> I hereby request to add a paragraph at least, stating exactly this.
>
I agree completely in that point.
Alos, r
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 21:53, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This is absurd. The council shouldn't need to make every decision in
> Gentoo itself. It should be able to delegate power to any group it chooses.
Such a decision is not like /every/ decision and should happen only very
seldom, so I don't s
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> This is what I'd like to see clarified. To me, only a decision of the Council
> may lead to such a "suspension", as it is the relevant _elected_ entity. And
> I hereby request to add a paragraph at least, stating exactly this.
This is absurd. The council shouldn't need to
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:44, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the job quite so
> often & so hard before handling this particular incident. I don't think
> it's so unreasonable to have backup plans for preserving Gentoo when
> devrel cannot respond in a tim
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 06:52, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> sorry, those last two paragraphs are covered elsewhere between infra and
> evrel ... so the document should be considered without those last two
> paragraphs
> -mike
This is what I'd like to see clarified. To me, only a decision of the Counci
Solar points out that I'm relaying details from -core to -dev in this
post. My apologies for that, I'll try to be more careful. :-(
Aron
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ned Ludd wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 09:40:54PM EDT]
> Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
> and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over.
Having root doesn't equal having authority. One of the issues right
now is whether Infra has assumed authorit
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Tue Apr 04 2006, 01:34:17AM EDT]
> When some people define common courtesy to be saying "You are a dick"
> and making spurious complaints to devrel at every given opportunity,
> I'd say that the mere existence of such a procedure only goes to
> encourage them to misbehave f
Vapier wrote: [Tue Apr 04 2006, 01:12:28AM EDT]
> the idea is that it's common sense and to need to vote on something
> like this seems asinine
It might seem that way, but something that is voted on and accepted
has credibility. Something that is simply posted as "common sense"
does not.
Aron
-
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 10:37:39PM -0400 or thereabouts, Stephen P. Becker
wrote:
> which was titled "fscking behave" if I recall.
Kinda sad that we have to state the obvious, imo.
> from "infra will suspend unilaterally as they see fit, and there is
> nothing devrel can even do about it" to its
Vapier wrote: [Tue Apr 04 2006, 01:27:54AM EDT]
> On Monday 03 April 2006 19:35, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > I disagree with fast-tracking this to any official Gentoo
> > documentation.
>
> i never used the word "fast" ... where did it come from ?
Earlier you said:
Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 20
Vapier wrote: [Tue Apr 04 2006, 12:12:28AM CDT]
> On Monday 03 April 2006 22:57, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Oh, one more probably useless comment: I would argue that the decision
> > to enforce an etiquette guide that devs never really got to vote on has
> > lead to a lot of grief in the past. Let'
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 05:33, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> lnxg33k wrote:
> > At the
> > end of the day though, respect is earned. It isn't doled out by policy.
>
> I can't agree with that. I for one beleive that I have to respect
> everyone. Even folks I don't like.
you can respect a dev because they e
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 04:48, foser wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 00:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > you lost your sense of humor please go find it,
> > END-OF-OFF-TOPIC-SUB-THREAD
>
> As usual your answer fails to deal with the real issues stated and zooms
> in on something largely irreleva
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:30:29PM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> >
> >>I feel really confused. Have you read the logs of the recent affair?
> >>Devrel *hadn't* requested anything, infra made an action on their own
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
>
>>I feel really confused. Have you read the logs of the recent affair?
>>Devrel *hadn't* requested anything, infra made an action on their own
>>and *didn't* revert it even after being told by devrel that no action
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Alexandre Buisse wrote:
>> Sorry but I am.
>
> Opps, sorry, got confused by your name :), I thought you were someone
> else... it's too late here, apparently.
I am as well. Move out.
--
Ioannis Aslanidis
Gentoo Staff
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> I feel really confused. Have you read the logs of the recent affair?
> Devrel *hadn't* requested anything, infra made an action on their own
> and *didn't* revert it even after being told by devrel that no action
> was requested.
And t
Jon Portnoy wrote:
>>>Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the job quite so
>>>often & so hard before handling this particular incident. I don't think
>>>it's so unreasonable to have backup plans for preserving Gentoo when
>>>devrel cannot respond in a timely manner
>>
>>Come on,
lnxg33k wrote:
> "The Gentoo community and its members treat one another with respect."
> News to me. I think the users do a good job helping each other.
> Developer and user relations lack some imo. Developer and Developer
> relations are worse.
Well, the intention is that we all are people and s
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 01:51 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> so we're clear, this thread was not started "because of Ciaran". in other
> words, this is not just about Ciaran. i can think of other people who need
> to be told to stop being a dick.
So can I, after reading some of your reactions o
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 00:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> you lost your sense of humor please go find it, END-OF-OFF-TOPIC-SUB-THREAD
As usual your answer fails to deal with the real issues stated and zooms
in on something largely irrelevant to the discussion. How typical. If
someone lost anythin
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 01:27:54 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i recognize i'm a bit of a dick and i'm trying to change.
I'll use this opportunity to add that your efforts are not going
unnoticed. Thanks.
Kind regards to all,
JeR
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:34, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 01:12:28 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> | if devs are uncomfortable with common courtesy and need to be told by
> | the council in order for this to happen, so be it
>
> When some people define common courtesy
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:35, Aron Griffis wrote:
> This part makes sense, I think... though I don't see the point of
> codifying it except to "throw the book" at the next Paludis. Frankly
> I think Ciaran did nothing wrong to restrict distribution on a project
> he didn't feel was ready for pub
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:23, lnxg33k wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the idea is that it's common sense and to need to vote on something like
> > this seems asinine
> >
> > if devs are uncomfortable with common courtesy and need to be told by the
> > council in order for this to happen, so be
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 01:12:28 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| if devs are uncomfortable with common courtesy and need to be told by
| the council in order for this to happen, so be it
When some people define common courtesy to be saying "You are a dick"
and making spurious complain
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:03, lnxg33k wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:47:11PM -0500, lnxg33k wrote:
> >> uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one." This is odd
> >> considering that the OP calls anyone who disagrees a terrorist. I'm
> >> pretty speechless ove
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:35, Aron Griffis wrote:
> I disagree with fast-tracking this to any official Gentoo
> documentation.
i never used the word "fast" ... where did it come from ? maybe from the
sweet behind of yours ? (you're going to be at LWE this year right ?
mm)
> > Be c
Mike Frysinger wrote:
the idea is that it's common sense and to need to vote on something like this
seems asinine
if devs are uncomfortable with common courtesy and need to be told by the
council in order for this to happen, so be it
hopefully devs will just "get it"
Again, I'm just a user
On Monday 03 April 2006 22:57, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 04:38:48PM CDT]
>
> > i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!),
> > so this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook
> > Etiquette section
>
> Oh, one more probably u
On Monday 03 April 2006 22:19, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 04:38:48PM CDT]
>
> > dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next
> > sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to
> > be done
>
> Actually, I disagree that i
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:47:11PM -0500, lnxg33k wrote:
uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one." This is odd
considering that the OP calls anyone who disagrees a terrorist. I'm pretty
speechless over this one (and annoyed) so I'll leave it as is.
Humor can be
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:27:39PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:52:33PM CDT]
> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 07:35:52PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > > Clearly this sentence states that Infra has usurped the suspension
> > > process. It's very disappointing s
On Monday 03 April 2006 20:29, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the
> > next sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this
> > needs to be done
> >
>
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:40, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Am Montag, 3. April 2006 23:38 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> > dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next
> > sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to
> > be done
> >
> > many than
On Monday 03 April 2006 18:41, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next
> > sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to
> > be done
> >
> > many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:01, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 05:38:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
> >
> > If you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the
> > Infrastructure project have reviewed and approved the p
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:47:11PM -0500, lnxg33k wrote:
> uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one." This is odd
> considering that the OP calls anyone who disagrees a terrorist. I'm pretty
> speechless over this one (and annoyed) so I'll leave it as is.
Humor can be funny sometimes
On Monday 03 April 2006 18:36, foser wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 17:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!),
>
> For someone who's promoting 'ubuntu' like conduct, your choice of words
> is rather Patriot Act-ish. If this two-fac
On Monday 03 April 2006 18:28, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> And calling people who disagree with this terrorists was really a bad
> comment.
sorry, you seem to have lost your sense of humor along the way. please locate
it, thanks.
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Monday 03 April 2006 17:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
> | terrorist!)
>
> I for one welcome our new infra overlords. Perhaps you should add in a
> clause
On Monday 03 April 2006 20:03, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> Now, there are some details to fill in. Devrel and infra have agreed that
> when responsibilities overlap, neither group would act unilaterally.
> Please see http://dev.gentoo.org/~fmccor/devrel/devrel-infra.txt (esp.
> section II.) So, unl
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:10:20AM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:40:59AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> >
> >>This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This
> >>is
> >>how I personally think this should be handled in fut
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 22:37 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 03:14 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> >> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400
> >> Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 04:38:48PM CDT]
> i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so
> this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette
> section
Oh, one more probably useless comment: I would argue that the decision
to enforce an et
From an outsiders point of view, this looks really, really ridiculous. I
personally feel that if something like this is even needed (which I don't
believe), then it shouldn't be phrased as a "Code of Conduct" which implies
strict compliance thereof. That's the gist of what I wanted to toss in, b
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:23:49 -0400
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> don't be a troll man.
If that comment appears to be a troll, I will assume that I
misinterpreted the mail to which it was a reply. Could you enlighten me
as to what I should have taken from it instead?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.
Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 03:14 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400
>> Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
>>> and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over.
>
Danny van Dyk wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:40:59PM CDT]
> Well, you're wrong. I'm against this conduct in its current form and I
> am no terrorist. Further, i really dislike how you tried to avoid
> public discussion by deeming everyone who disagrees as a terrorist.
You know, to the best of my know
Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:52:33PM CDT]
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 07:35:52PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > Clearly this sentence states that Infra has usurped the suspension
> > process. It's very disappointing since Devrel has put so much work
> > into a process that has been demote
Aron Griffis wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:35:52PM CDT]
> This should be shortened to say just what it means: Developers will
> have more fun, be more productive, and create a better distribution if
> we concentrate on the issues instead of resorting to personal attacks.
Although I tend to agree wit
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 03:14 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400
> Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
> > and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over.
> So this is effecti
Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 04:38:48PM CDT]
> dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane
> guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done
Actually, I disagree that it "needs to be done". Once upon a time I
helped plasmaroo craft pa
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
> and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over.
So this is effectively an admission that infra intends to use its
position of trust to un
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 00:03:08 + (UTC) Ferris McCormick
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | I still think the intent is good and support it.
>
> The intent is to allow infra to arbitrarily suspend anyone they like,
> with no accountability.
>
Accountability resides between
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 00:03:08 + (UTC) Ferris McCormick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I still think the intent is good and support it.
The intent is to allow infra to arbitrarily suspend anyone they like,
with no accountability.
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat)
Mai
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 02:11 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> >>It's infras job to enforce the permissions as given by devrel. If devrel
> >>says,
> >>somebody is allowed to commit in the main tree, nobody but devrel should be
> >>allowed to revoke this. The only exceptions are those
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 4/3/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so
this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette
sectio
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
> > terrorist!), so this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev
> > handbook Etiquette section
>
> The last
Jan Kundrát wrote:
None, of course, and I think I'me quite nice, actually :). A talk about
"who should be able to punish you" is not for -dev, IMHO.
While it's not strictly "development of Gentoo," I don't see any reason
for it to be a closed discussion, and this is the best general-purpose
l
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 20:03:55 -0400 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > It's infras job to enforce the permissions as given by devrel. If
| > devrel says, somebody is allowed to commit in the main tree, nobody
| > but devrel should be allowed to revoke this. The only exceptions
| > are those cas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 4/3/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so
this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette
sectio
Ned Ludd wrote:
>>It's infras job to enforce the permissions as given by devrel. If devrel
>>says,
>>somebody is allowed to commit in the main tree, nobody but devrel should be
>>allowed to revoke this. The only exceptions are those case already stated
>>above.
>
>
> I think your understandin
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:40:59AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
>
>>This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This
>>is
>>how I personally think this should be handled in future.
>>
>
>
> Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the j
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> Sorry but I am.
Opps, sorry, got confused by your name :), I thought you were someone
else... it's too late here, apparently.
> What I saw was a document saying "Be nice to each other". And in the end
> "If you aren't nice, you will be punished". Big deal.
Yup, that's r
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 01:40 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
...
> If
> >you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the Infrastructure
> >project have reviewed and approved the proxy relationship to avoid having
> >access cut off for both developers.
Refresh your browser.
> It's infr
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 01:01 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 05:38:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
>
> > If you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the
> > Infrastructure project have reviewed and approved th
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 07:35:52PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Clearly this sentence states that Infra has usurped the suspension
> process. It's very disappointing since Devrel has put so much work
> into a process that has been demoted to "recommendation" status.
>
You mean the broken policy.
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:40:59AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
>
> This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This
> is
> how I personally think this should be handled in future.
>
Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the job quite so
often & so hard
I disagree with fast-tracking this to any official Gentoo
documentation.
> Be considerate. Your work will be used by other people, and you in
> turn will depend on the work of others. Any decision you make will
> affect users and colleagues, and we expect you to take those
> consequences into acco
Mike,
Am Montag, 3. April 2006 23:38 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane
> guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done
>
> many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here:
> ht
On Tue, Apr 4, 2006 at 01:17:59 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 4, 2006 at 00:37:12 +0200, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>wrote:
> >>| i dont see how anyone can be against this (unl
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the
> next sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this
> needs to be done
>
> many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the re
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 05:38:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
> If you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the
> Infrastructure project have reviewed and approved the proxy
> relationship to avoid having access cut off for both devel
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2006 at 00:37:12 +0200, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>| i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
>>| terrorist!)
>>
>>I for one welcome our new infra overlord
On Tue, Apr 4, 2006 at 00:37:12 +0200, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
> | terrorist!)
>
> I for one welcome our new infra overlords. Perhaps you should add in a
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane
> guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done
>
> many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 17:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!),
For someone who's promoting 'ubuntu' like conduct, your choice of words
is rather Patriot Act-ish. If this two-facedness reflects the intentions
of people behind this
Even though things are how they are, I tend to agree on this matter with
Ciaran as well. I am sorry but I am missing the point on why of all
this. A full developer cannot be suspended from infra, if that happens,
he/she is not a developer any more.
Seriously, I think you are pushing this too far.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I for one welcome our new infra overlords. Perhaps you should add in a
clause saying that infra will randomly (maybe with the help of a
keyword filter) inspect emails sent to all @gentoo.org addresses for
any signs of subversive activity. You could also add a clause saying
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
| terrorist!)
I for one welcome our new infra overlords. Perhaps you should add in a
clause saying that infra will randomly (maybe with the help of a
keyword fil
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 4/3/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so
this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette
section
Let's go one step further, and also link to it from the
On 4/3/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so
> this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette
> section
Let's go one step further, and also link to it from the Social
Contract. Our social
dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane
guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done
many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
i dont see how anyone can
93 matches
Mail list logo
