Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Aron Griffis]

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 something that is voted on and accepted
> > has credibility.  Something that is simply posted as "common sense"
> > does not.
> 
> but something that is accepted by everyone rather than being handed down from 
> a much smaller group of people has more credibility imho
> 
> the point of this thread was to see what everyone thought and getting it to 
> the point where everyone is happy, not just the people who would be voting

Oh, I agree with that completely, if a few days late.

Aron
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 reads what you have to write 
as it's always well intentioned, thought out, and generally a good read :)
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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.  Something that is simply posted as "common sense"
> does not.

but something that is accepted by everyone rather than being handed down from 
a much smaller group of people has more credibility imho

the point of this thread was to see what everyone thought and getting it to 
the point where everyone is happy, not just the people who would be voting
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 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.

as i said, this is an unrelated topic to the code of conduct

if you wish to learn more about the devrel/infra interaction stuff, feel free 
to check out their meeting logs
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Paul de Vrieze]

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. Especially 
when viewing gentoo as a community. Bullying can not be tollerated.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net


pgpZahNivmCFv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Paul de Vrieze]

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 the amount of developers in the project the project isn't 
small anymore, and noone knows everyone.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net


pgpwAMTOkwvsT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mark Loeser]

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 exactly this.
> 
> 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.

Agreed, and they are allowed to revoke said power if they chose as well.
This shouldn't happen, but if they believe a group has stepped out of
line...  Things should only go to the council when all other methods
fail, and they are the only ones you can appeal to.

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86)
email -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web   -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
  http://www.halcy0n.com


pgpWCGuZXI2w5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[solar]

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 least, stating exactly this.
...


> 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.

Thanks for pointing this out Donnie.

-- 
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ioannis Aslanidis]

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, related to the 'root' discussion, if we see this like a company,
the fact that you are the sys-admin doesn't make you the boss... rather
the opposite, a subordinate at the orders of your boss. I think most of
you understand what I mean with this example.

-- 
Ioannis Aslanidis

Gentoo Staff
Gentoo Linux
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Carsten Lohrke]

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 see any reason or need to delegate it.


Carsten


pgpL8Q08zUZYq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Donnie Berkholz]

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 make every decision in
Gentoo itself. It should be able to delegate power to any group it chooses.

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Carsten Lohrke]

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 timely manner

If you exclude that devrel for a long long while was unable to retire 
developers properly and if you exclude that people bitched about devrel not 
updating docs - then maybe. I'm stating this, please don't take it as 
flaming.


Carsten


pgphPKubxwRHS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Carsten Lohrke]

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 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.

Also I do agree with foser and many others about the dubious wording. It can 
be stretched to any extent, if "needed". And I'm not that suspicious, given 
that Infra already acted once, without having any right to do so.


Carsten


pgpgb0LD0E4qS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Aron Griffis]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Aron Griffis]

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 authority on the basis of power.  If
they didn't have root, wouldn't their decision to grant themselves
authority look rather silly?

A contrast between Infra and the Council is that the former is a team
that has chosen itself (like any other team in Gentoo), the latter is
elected.  The Council has been granted authority by the Foundation
members.  Infra has power by virtue of being entrusted with the keys
to the Gentoo infrastructure, paradoxically it has no authority beyond
the decisions that fall in its domain, those necessary to the daily
running of the Gentoo infrastructure.

Suspending a Ciaran's access falls on the line.  IMHO it was an
overstep, an abuse of power, but an understandable mistake.
I disagree with Infra's refusal to restore Ciaran's access when it was
first requested by Ferris.  I know Devrel and Infra have now reached
an agreement, but frankly I think the situation still stinks, because
it's skirting the agreed-upon Devrel process by suspending Ciaran
before the conclusion of the trial.

Your statement essentially says that power and authority are the same
thing, and there's no point quibbling over it.  I don't buy it.

Aron
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Aron Griffis]

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 further.

Indeed many of the messages in this thread lend support to this
argument.

Aron


pgpeoGrVGftgD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Aron Griffis]

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
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Kurt Lieber]

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 current form.  

No, that's not the case.  We have stated in other emails where we will get 
involved in
a dev suspension.  I'm not going to re-hash them here.

> I must say that I find the idea that you guys have been thinking along
> these lines at all to be somewhat disturbing.

If I get so pissed off at someone that I think about punching them in the
face, but I never actually do it, should I be charged with assault? 

Also, "you guys" is a bit broad.  You haven't talked to each indvidiual
member of our team, so please don't presume to know what all our thoughts
might be.

--kurt


pgpTeMh3aoMKo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Aron Griffis]

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 2006, 05:38:48PM EDT]
> this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook
> Etiquette section

You're right, I introduced the word "fast" but it's what I thought you
meant by "on track to be integrated as-is".  Sorry if I misunderstood.

> > > 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 account when making decisions.
> >
> > All of this is obvious, except for who is "we"?
> 
> the Gentoo community ?  your peers and loved ones ?

Ok, thanks for the clarification.  IMHO "we expect" is patronizing,
which is unfortunately the overall tone of this document.  I'm not
just whining here... I'm willing to offer alternative suggestions that
hopefull will drop that tone.  For example, how does this sound
instead?

Be considerate.  Your work is used by other people, and you in
turn depend on the work of others.  Each decision you make affects
users and colleagues, so consider your choices carefully in light
of the consequences.

> > > Be respectful. The Gentoo community and its members treat one
> > > another with respect.
> >
> > Odd to make this declarative statement when it isn't true.
> 
> this document now exists because this statement isnt true ... this is one 
> part 
> of a solution imo

Personally, I think your statement in another subthread regarding two
kinds of respect was more valuable than this questionable declaration.
You were wrong, though, regarding respect.  Respect is always earned.
The term we need here is "grace", which refers to giving something
that isn't necessarily deserved.  Here is my attempt at rewriting that
entire paragraph:

Be gracious.  When a disagreement arises, the possibility exists
that you are wrong and the other person is right.  Especially
when a situation is frustrating, you give the most to the Gentoo
community by responding humbly and patiently.

Personally I think this covers the bases.  I don't think it's
necessary to detail who deserves this kind of treatment, the very
definition of grace implies that it applies to everybody.

I also like this because it's different from Ubuntu's document.  That
isn't reason in itself, but it's nice to believe that we've carefully
chosen our words and eventually produced something that applies best
to Gentoo.

> > > Everyone can make a valuable contribution to Gentoo.
> >
> > They can?  Making this kind of feel-good blanket statement just
> > detracts from the rest of this document.
> 
> how so ?  one of the critiques we have is that one jackass can turn off 
> users/potential devs simply by their abrasive behavior.  another critique is 
> that some of us (i am guilty of this as well) of being too "snobbish" in 
> terms of who can actually make useful contributions (generally if you have an 
> @gentoo.org, that somehow "qualifies" you while those who do not are just 
> meat).  i recognize i'm a bit of a dick and i'm trying to change.

I took this out in my rewrite above.  I'm not trying to deny that it's
a mindset that we should have, but IMHO it doesn't lend anything
beyond what has already been said.  If you think it really needs to be
said, I can try to work it back in...

> > > We may not always agree, but disagreement is no excuse for
> > > poor behaviour and poor manners. We might all experience some
> > > frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to
> > > turn into a personal attacks. It's important to remember that
> > > a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not
> > > a productive one.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> i sort of like the longer winded version better ... really this paragraph 
> shouldnt have to exist at all, but since it does, i like the version that 
> spells out each detail clearly.

Heh, I don't see it as details, I see it as rambling and muddiness.
But you're right that my original attempt lost the concept.  What do
you think of my new one ("Be gracious...")

> > > Be collaborative. Gentoo and Free Software are about collaboration
> > > and working together. Collaboration reduces redundancy of work done
> > > in the Free Software world, and improves the quality of the software
> > > produced. You should aim to collaborate with other Gentoo
> > > maintainers, as well as with the upstream community that is
> > > interested in the work you do. Your w

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Grant Goodyear]

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's not repeat that, please?  If
> > we're going to enforce new doctrine it should perhaps have the
> > imprimatur of the Council, since if people disagree then they can fire
> > the folks who made the ultimate decision.  (Of course, if there's
> > general consensus, then that's not really necessary.)
> 
> 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"

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear.  Yes, common courtesy should
certainly be encouraged.  I really wasn't trying to suggest otherwise.

What I had intended to say was that in the past devrel has used the
etiquette guide as a basis for censuring devs.  The logic was sound
enough: the etiquette guide is policy, some devs violate that policy,
and devrel kicks their tails.  The problem was that when the guide was
created, it wasn't clear that it was intended as policy.  Well, I didn't
think of it as policy, anyway; I figured it was just a helpful guide for
the clueless.  The result was that when devrel started enforcing the
etiquette guide, many devs complained that a policy was being enforced
that was never really approved as such by the devs.

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.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear  
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76


pgpBMC3bPkfkN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 earned it and you can respect a dev by not 
being a jackass.  these are two kinds of respect, the latter of which we are 
addressing here.
-mike

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 irrelevant to the discussion.

as addressed elsewhere, the two paragraphs that deal with infra are to be 
disregarded

> How typical. If someone lost anything here, it's credibility.

coming from you that cuts oh so deeply, like a flesh wound
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jon Portnoy]

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
> >>and *didn't* revert it even after being told by devrel that no action
> >>was requested.
> > 
> > 
> > And then there was much discussion and it was largely resolved 
> > between the two projects, so I don't see how it's relevant to what I 
> > said.
> 
> Well, you said that "Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on
> the job quite so often & so hard before handling this particular
> incident." - but imho they didn't in the recent case, either.
> 

I was referring to the current pattern devrel seems locked in to, 
starting with current policy (and some IMO internal mishandling of the 
situation, but in the past and nothing a flamefest should be started 
over for sure). The 'infra picks up pieces' issue really should be a 
last resort sort of deal.

> Thanks for polite replies, btw.
> 

And same to you ;)

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jan Kundrát]

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
>>was requested.
> 
> 
> And then there was much discussion and it was largely resolved 
> between the two projects, so I don't see how it's relevant to what I 
> said.

Well, you said that "Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on
the job quite so often & so hard before handling this particular
incident." - but imho they didn't in the recent case, either.

Thanks for polite replies, btw.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ioannis Aslanidis]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jon Portnoy]

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 then there was much discussion and it was largely resolved 
between the two projects, so I don't see how it's relevant to what I 
said.

> 
> Sure infra has to pick up the pieces, that's their job. If they don't
> like it and think that $someone is about to screw up something while
> devrel doesn't think so and devrel don't change their mind after a talk
> with infra, even then infra should have *no power* to suspend the dev in
> question. At least that's how I see the infra's role as I already stated
> several times on -core. Politics != system administration.
> 

I said when devrel breaks, not when infra and devrel disagree.

I can't comment on the most recent issue, I had no involvement, have no 
opinion, and don't feel like getting into a mailing list war over 
something that's already been resolved even if I did -- including 
current devrel/infra relations since it's no longer considered part of 
the proposed code of conduct :)

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jan Kundrát]

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, this is FUD. Devrel had had a plenty of time to make an action
>>*and* to talk to infra in the recent case. They had decided *not* to do
>>that - which means that they didn't consider it apropriate, IMHO.
>>
>>Or am I really missing something obvious?
>>
> 
> 
> My point is that when devrel breaks infra has to pick up the pieces, 
> thus it makes sense for them to have that angle covered.

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.

Sure infra has to pick up the pieces, that's their job. If they don't
like it and think that $someone is about to screw up something while
devrel doesn't think so and devrel don't change their mind after a talk
with infra, even then infra should have *no power* to suspend the dev in
question. At least that's how I see the infra's role as I already stated
several times on -core. Politics != system administration.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jan Kundrát]

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 should respect each
other regardless if you are a developer or not. Even if you proposed
something I wouldn't agree with, there's no reason to (fex) go to name
calling.

Anyway, if you see someone behaving in a "wrong way", you should try to
notify him politely. There's a chance he will stop.

> 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.

> The bit about retaining developer status without commit changes doesn't
> make sense. Sounds like they've been demoted to an AT. Having your
> access denied should be severe enough that any and all status held with
> Gentoo should be revoked. If there, for some reason, is a need to
> temporarily deny access until a ruling can be had, then is another story.

I'm afraid that you lack some background here, sorry.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[foser]

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 on this thread.

- foser


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[foser]

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 anything here, it's credibility.

- foser


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jeroen Roovers]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 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 further.

to some degree you are correct.  this document offers more ammo for those 
whiners to get back at other devs that they have "issues" with (define as you 
will).  and as much as it may suck for you, i believe having the document 
would benefit Gentoo development much much more than hinder it.
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 public consumption.  It has always seemed
> to me like the overreactions were the problem.

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.  this isnt a document meant to "try and kick 
out Ciaran" as many of us need to kick it up a notch in terms of 
friendliness.  my april 1st resolution is to cut down on my flames (i dont 
believe in bears ... they're just a fiction perpetrated by the man to keep us 
from camping in the woods and peeing in bushes)
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 it
> >
> > hopefully devs will just "get it"
>
> Again, I'm just a user, but I think this whole thread touches on something
> a bit deeper.

off topic for this thread but on topic in so many others
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ciaran McCreesh]

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 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 further.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat)
Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 over this one (and annoyed) so I'll leave it as is.
> >
> > Humor can be funny sometimes
>
> Sure can. Just not when discussing codes of conduct.

try again then please

maybe you'll laugh

maybe you'll cry

maybe you'll poop your pants

either way you should find that sense of humor and use it ... otherwise you're 
taking yourself too seriously and that just leads to heart attacks (ive heard 
those suck)
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 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 account when making decisions.
>
> All of this is obvious, except for who is "we"?

the Gentoo community ?  your peers and loved ones ?

> > Be respectful. The Gentoo community and its members treat one
> > another with respect.
>
> Odd to make this declarative statement when it isn't true.

this document now exists because this statement isnt true ... this is one part 
of a solution imo

> > Everyone can make a valuable contribution to Gentoo.
>
> They can?  Making this kind of feel-good blanket statement just
> detracts from the rest of this document.

how so ?  one of the critiques we have is that one jackass can turn off 
users/potential devs simply by their abrasive behavior.  another critique is 
that some of us (i am guilty of this as well) of being too "snobbish" in 
terms of who can actually make useful contributions (generally if you have an 
@gentoo.org, that somehow "qualifies" you while those who do not are just 
meat).  i recognize i'm a bit of a dick and i'm trying to change.

> > We may not always agree, but disagreement is no excuse for
> > poor behaviour and poor manners. We might all experience some
> > frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to
> > turn into a personal attacks. It's important to remember that
> > a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not
> > a productive one.
>
> 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.

i sort of like the longer winded version better ... really this paragraph 
shouldnt have to exist at all, but since it does, i like the version that 
spells out each detail clearly.

> > We expect members of the Gentoo community to be
> > respectful when dealing with other contributors as well as with
> > people outside the Gentoo project, and with users of Gentoo.
>
> Again, who is "we"?

see previous comment

> > Be collaborative. Gentoo and Free Software are about collaboration
> > and working together. Collaboration reduces redundancy of work done
> > in the Free Software world, and improves the quality of the software
> > produced. You should aim to collaborate with other Gentoo
> > maintainers, as well as with the upstream community that is
> > interested in the work you do. Your work should be done
> > transparently and patches from Gentoo should be given back to the
> > community when they are made, not just when the distribution
> > releases. If you wish to work on new code for existing upstream
> > projects, at least keep those projects informed of your ideas and
> > progress. It may not be possible to get consensus from upstream or
> > even from your colleagues about the correct implementation of an
> > idea, so don't feel obliged to have that agreement before you begin,
> > but at least keep the outside world informed of your work, and
> > publish your work in a way that allows outsiders to test, discuss
> > and contribute to your efforts.
>
> 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 public consumption.  It has always seemed
> to me like the overreactions were the problem.

err, i dont see this interpretation at all ... how would this affect the 
Paludis work ?  in anything, it codifies the work as being even "more" valid

really though, this paragraph is not targeted at the Paludis project or Ciaran 
in any way ... not quite sure where this thought of yours is coming from 
(somewhere underneath that beautiful hair of yours i imagine)

> > When you disagree, consult others. Disagreements, both political and
> > technical, happen all the time and the Gentoo community is no
> > exception. The important goal is not to avoid disagreements or
> > differing views but to resolve them constructively. You should turn
> > to the community and to the community process to seek advice and to
> > resolve disagreements. We have the Council, Infra, Devrel and Team
> > Leaders all of which help you decide the right course for Gentoo.
>
> What do you mean by "turn to the community and to the community
> process"?  I'm not sure what that entails.

we have a couple "standard" means of opening community discussion.  irc, 
e-mail lists, forums, you name it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[lnxg33k]

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, but I think this whole thread touches on something a 
bit deeper. The mere presence of something like this is evidence of that. If 
people are taking the time to put something like this into policy (or 
whatever), then the community really needs to be re-evaluated. If people need 
to be told to "play nicely," then perhaps someone should give them a boot. 
Granted, that is a little contradictory, but any qualifying of a relationship 
(used very generally here) is going to turn that way.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 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's not repeat that, please?  If
> we're going to enforce new doctrine it should perhaps have the
> imprimatur of the Council, since if people disagree then they can fire
> the folks who made the ultimate decision.  (Of course, if there's
> general consensus, then that's not really necessary.)

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"
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 it "needs to be done".

if it wasnt needed we wouldnt be watching devs depart because they were tired 
of dealing with shit/politics/butt sex

> Once upon a time I 
> helped plasmaroo craft parts of our etiquette guide, but at the time I
> assumed that it was a guide to help the clueless, not a rigid code that

how is it rigid ?  it's basically "dont be a dick" in longer winded terms

> we would be putting in place (and under which one could be prosecuted).

huh ?  if you're referring to the trailing infra paragraphs, please disregard 
those and consider the document again.  otherwise i have no idea what you 
mean by "prosecuted"

> > many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here:
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
>
> Um, do we have permission from the authors?  Some of the sentences seem
> to be word-for-word identical to the source.

we'll ask them tomorrow at the ubuntu booth in LWE

> Incidentally, why drop the part about leaving the project in a considerate
> manner? 

we can add it back in if people like.  ideally, you wouldnt want to leave us.  
JOIN US.

> > 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
>
> A few points:  The "be collaborative" stanza echoes our social policy,
> so it's not clear that it's needed here.

it is a bit redundant but this is one point i like hammering into people.  i'm 
tired of seeing projects *cough* FreeBSD *cough* that patch their packages to 
hell and rarely try to contribute back.  if redundancy hammers a point home, 
this is a pretty good point to do so with imo.

> In any event, if we plan to 
> use this document to extend or otherwise clarify our social policy, then
> I tend to think that does deserve some discussion.

that's why i started a thread instead of simply committing it

> As for the bit about 
> "disruptive behaviors" being "a security and stability threat to
> Gentoo", I assume that's Solar's contribution?

please consider the doc without those infra related paragraphs as they are 
unrelated to a proper code of conduct
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[lnxg33k]

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 funny sometimes


Sure can. Just not when discussing codes of conduct.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jon Portnoy]

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 since Devrel has put so much work
> > > into a process that has been demoted to "recommendation" status.
> > > 
> > 
> > You mean the broken policy.xml everyone wants to replace?
> 
> That's rather unfair.  Yes, you and many others want to replace it.  I
> think it is fair to say that many other people think it was a good, if
> imperfect, start.
> 

They can think what they like, I think anyone actually trying to get 
anything accomplished under it would disagree that it's a good start 
(unless you're the offender, then it's great since it takes ages for 
devrel to even start thinking about actually addressing the problem). 
Ask some of the devrel guys working on this case what they think of 
current policy

> > I agree some of the wording should be altered, but I do think it's 
> > sensible for infra to cover when devrel falls on its rear.
> 
> Of course, it is possible that rational people might disagree that such
> an event has happened here.  
> 

I don't think I said it had yet.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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
> >
> > 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 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 two paragraphs aren't really acceptable for a code of conduct
> from my POV. And I'm referring to the general meaning there, not the
> specific wording.

consider the document without the last two paragraphs covering infra powers as 
that will be documented/handled elsewhere as a result of the meetings between 
the two groups
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 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 be against this (unless you're a terrorist!),
> > so this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook
> > Etiquette section
>
> 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 lost your sense of humor please go find it, END-OF-OFF-TOPIC-SUB-THREAD

> I don't agree with some of the wording of the conduct, mostly with the last
> paragraphs.

consider the document w/out the last two paragraphs covering infra control
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 doing the real work here:
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
> >
> > 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
>
> I already happen to know a very large number of people are against this
> as worded, including myself.  If you don't believe me, simply look back
> at the thread discussing Ciaran's access revocation by infra.  Lots of
> people didn't like that very much.  Forcing the same bullshit into
> policy doesn't change the fact that it is wrong, it merely provides a
> way for infra to blow off criticism by saying "RTFM" in the future in
> case such an event happens again.
>
> The simple fact is, until devrel has decided somebody has done something
> wrong, such pre-emptive strikes against developers are wrong as far as I
> am concerned.

please consider the document without the last two paragraphs as they do not 
belong in it

devrel/infra interaction is covered/agreed upon elsewhere

my bad
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 proxy
> > relationship to avoid having access cut off for both developers.
>
> In other words, if suspended dev A notices something's broken, and
> dev B (not suspended) agrees, dev B is required to leave it broken until
> infra makes a decision. I assume that's not the intent, so could that
> sentence please be reworded or dropped?

please consider the document without the last two paragraphs as those will not 
be part of this page when incorporated into the handbook
-mike

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jon Portnoy]

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

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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-facedness reflects the intentions
> of people behind this semi-civilized means of minority-control, I'll
> pass on it.

you lost your sense of humor please go find it, END-OF-OFF-TOPIC-SUB-THREAD
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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 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
> that developers must hand over their harddrives to infra upon request so
> that security audits can be performed.

sorry, those last two paragraphs are covered elsewhere between infra and 
evrel ... so the document should be considered without those last two 
paragraphs
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mike Frysinger]

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, unless Mike's intent is to repudiate what I believe we
> agreed to, you would have to read solar's document and the one I just
> referenced together, so the fifth paragraph needs clarification.

sorry, this is a fuck up on my end

the last two paragraphs dont belong in this document as infra and devrel 
have/are coming to their own terms to deal with this issue of dev access
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jon Portnoy]

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 future.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 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, this is FUD. Devrel had had a plenty of time to make an action
> *and* to talk to infra in the recent case. They had decided *not* to do
> that - which means that they didn't consider it apropriate, IMHO.
> 
> Or am I really missing something obvious?
> 

My point is that when devrel breaks infra has to pick up the pieces, 
thus it makes sense for them to have that angle covered.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ned Ludd]

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
> >>> 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 unilaterally enforce its members' will upon the
> >> developers as a whole. I shall make a note not to disagree with any of
> >> you in the future.
> > 
> > don't be a troll man.
> 
> I would agree with you that this was a troll, except that I happen to
> have seen a previous revision of your policy doc a day or two ago, which
> was titled "fscking behave" if I recall.  Unfortunately, I didn't save a
> copy (I really wish I would have), but it appears that the doc evolved
> from "infra will suspend unilaterally as they see fit, and there is
> nothing devrel can even do about it" to its current form.  I must say
> that I find the idea that you guys have been thinking along these lines
> at all to be somewhat disturbing.

Ok so your saying you saw the doc before now. Ok. So if you saw that 
then chances are you also saw me asking for feedback. Well. I'm open to
feedback. However right now it appears your trying to sway perception of
the readers by painting a picture of some evil sinister plots on in an
attempt to discredit people. If such is the case (and it sure feels like
it) then I'm not really interested in talking or working with you.

Next time try giving me an .xml patch or sending me a direct email if
you want me to update a document in "MY!" dev space or heh post your own
drafts to your own devspace.

-- 
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Grant Goodyear]

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 etiquette guide that devs never really got to vote on has
lead to a lot of grief in the past.  Let's not repeat that, please?  If
we're going to enforce new doctrine it should perhaps have the
imprimatur of the Council, since if people disagree then they can fire
the folks who made the ultimate decision.  (Of course, if there's
general consensus, then that's not really necessary.)

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear  
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76


pgpOol9Fy0RYG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[lnxg33k]

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, but 
below are a few conflicts/contradictions to note:


"It's important to remember that a community where people feel 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.


"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. Really, I 
would think it could be argued that developers aren't there to play footsie 
with people, but to actually do work -- having fun is a by product of doing 
something enjoyable. At the end of the day though, respect is earned. It isn't 
doled out by policy. Of course, both of the above quotes incite chuckles when 
emails are sent back and forth with ad hominem attacks and "don't troll."


The bit about retaining developer status without commit changes doesn't make 
sense. Sounds like they've been demoted to an AT. Having your access denied 
should be severe enough that any and all status held with Gentoo should be 
revoked. If there, for some reason, is a need to temporarily deny access until 
a ruling can be had, then is another story.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Stephen Bennett]

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.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Stephen P. Becker]

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.
> 
> 
>> So this is effectively an admission that infra intends to use its
>> position of trust to unilaterally enforce its members' will upon the
>> developers as a whole. I shall make a note not to disagree with any of
>> you in the future.
> 
> don't be a troll man.

I would agree with you that this was a troll, except that I happen to
have seen a previous revision of your policy doc a day or two ago, which
was titled "fscking behave" if I recall.  Unfortunately, I didn't save a
copy (I really wish I would have), but it appears that the doc evolved
from "infra will suspend unilaterally as they see fit, and there is
nothing devrel can even do about it" to its current form.  I must say
that I find the idea that you guys have been thinking along these lines
at all to be somewhat disturbing.

-Steve
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Grant Goodyear]

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 knowledge vapier is not a person who engages
in underhanded tricks.  My suspicion is that he was not trying to avoid
discussion, but that he truly thought the proposed code of conduct would
be uncontroversial.  (Perhaps one should add to such a code: "Give devs
the benefit of the doubt; ask what is meant instead of merely assuming
that your interpretation is correct  If nothing else, it helps limit
escalation.")

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear  
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76


pgpU4VcV2CE77.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Grant Goodyear]

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 demoted to "recommendation" status.
> > 
> 
> You mean the broken policy.xml everyone wants to replace?

That's rather unfair.  Yes, you and many others want to replace it.  I
think it is fair to say that many other people think it was a good, if
imperfect, start.

> I agree some of the wording should be altered, but I do think it's 
> sensible for infra to cover when devrel falls on its rear.

Of course, it is possible that rational people might disagree that such
an event has happened here.  

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear  
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76


pgpgejUmVK4dL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Grant Goodyear]

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 with your comments about the quality of the
writing, it's worth noting that much of this document was swiped from
Ubuntu's code of conduct.

> 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 public consumption.  It has always seemed
> to me like the overreactions were the problem.

I think you're reading too much into that passage.  It's from Ubuntu's
code of conduct, and it is essentially stating (part of?) their social
policy.

> > Repeated disruptive behaviors will be viewed as a security and
> > stability threat to Gentoo.
> 
> Classic switching to the passive voice when the actor wishes to be
> distanced from the action.  WHO will view these behaviors as
> a security and stability threat to Gentoo?  Is this a statement the
> existing developers are making?  The foundation?  Infra?

Here I'll certainly agree.  In fact, I agree with the rest of your
statements, so I can stop here.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear  
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76


pgpbfN8lXEfcg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ned Ludd]

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 effectively an admission that infra intends to use its
> position of trust to unilaterally enforce its members' will upon the
> developers as a whole. I shall make a note not to disagree with any of
> you in the future.

don't be a troll man.


-- 
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Grant Goodyear]

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 parts of our etiquette guide, but at the time I
assumed that it was a guide to help the clueless, not a rigid code that
we would be putting in place (and under which one could be prosecuted).
I think parts of the Ubuntu code are quite nice, but I still disagree
that we _need_ it.

> many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html

Um, do we have permission from the authors?  Some of the sentences seem
to be word-for-word identical to the source.  Incidentally, why drop the
part about leaving the project in a considerate manner?

> 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

A few points:  The "be collaborative" stanza echoes our social policy,
so it's not clear that it's needed here.  In any event, if we plan to
use this document to extend or otherwise clarify our social policy, then
I tend to think that does deserve some discussion.  As for the bit about
"disruptive behaviors" being "a security and stability threat to
Gentoo", I assume that's Solar's contribution?  It very much sounds like
his mindset that security should be pre-eminent.  It's certainly a valid
point of view, but I don't happen to agree with it.  I don't think that
security should trump all else.  (Incidentally, I still fail to see
exactly how a tree dev whose tree access has been revoked differs from a
non-developer Gentoo user.  Anybody, dev or not, can submit bugs and ask
devs to commit on his or her behalf.)  In any event, I thought we had
devrel to handle suspending devs, unless there was some sort of clear
urgency that required infra to do so?  Wasn't that the outcome of the
recent discussions?

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear  
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76


pgpAe8DaHp2iP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Stephen Bennett]

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 unilaterally enforce its members' will upon the
developers as a whole. I shall make a note not to disagree with any of
you in the future.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Lance Albertson]

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 devrel and infra if a resolution can be
made. If a resolution cannot be made between devrel and infra, then the
overall authority comes down to the council. The council will decide if
any accountability issues reside and will determine the actions that may
follow. So I have problems with your statement regarding infra having no
accountability.

I believe all devs have the most confidence in the council since it was
fairly voted upon by everyone.

-- 
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ciaran McCreesh]

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)
Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ned Ludd]

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 case already stated 
> >>above.
> > 
> > 
> > I think your understanding of how things work is a tad skewed here.
> 
> Great, then we don't agree upon this point. Let's talk about it, express
> our ideas, opinions and feelings and let the Council decide, okay?

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.

-- 
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ferris McCormick]

-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
section


Let's go one step further, and also link to it from the Social
Contract.  Our social contract shouldn't just be between Gentoo and
our users.  It should be amongst ourselves too.

Best regards,
Stu

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


I have replied elsewhere that I generally like this and agree with Stuart. 
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, unless Mike's intent is to repudiate what I believe we 
agreed to, you would have to read solar's document and the one I just 
referenced together, so the fifth paragraph needs clarification.


As for the proxy comment, as has been noted elsewhere, whenever I or 
anyone else commit something to the tree, it is very hard for anyone 
to tell if I am doing it for someone else or not.  So, say, it might look 
unusual when I make a substantative change rather than an arch change for 
something in dev-ruby, it has happened (at a ruby developer's request). 
(I'm a sparc/devrel developer, not a package developer for those puzzled

by this.)  So I am not sure of the proxy comment's practical effect.

I still think the intent is good and support it.

Regards,
- --
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEMbe/Qa6M3+I///cRArEWAJ9Yu6xRuDTpvG8oKDAu3zEv0lUeQQCgrf9Y
qBPlpULGDpMEguWB85XO+EU=
=Mhtu
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Mark Loeser]

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 two paragraphs aren't really acceptable for a code of conduct
> from my POV. And I'm referring to the general meaning there, not the
> specific wording.

I completely agree.  I was happy with the document until the last two
paragraphs.  It became less a "Code of Conduct" and more of a developer
relations/devrel/whatever policy.  Lets keep that out of a document like
this and decide on that through the appropriate channels.

If those last two paragraphs are cut, I'm quite happy with it, even if
it isn't all true right now, and is something we should strive towards
doing.

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86)
email -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web   -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
  http://www.halcy0n.com


pgpEMYrWaiyWD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Donnie Berkholz]

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 
list we've got.


Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ciaran McCreesh]

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 case already stated above.
| 
| I think your understanding of how things work is a tad skewed here.

Well yes. He's understanding how things are supposed to work, not how
those with root have decided that they shall work.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat)
Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ferris McCormick]

-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
section




Great idea!  Thanks.


Let's go one step further, and also link to it from the Social
Contract.  Our social contract shouldn't just be between Gentoo and
our users.  It should be amongst ourselves too.



Agreed; if it isn't, it should be.


Best regards,
Stu

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Regards,
Ferris

- --
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEMa8iQa6M3+I///cRApdNAKDQdMVanpvYqte2NFBGXCmlUBwOjgCgw9+z
tkNPo/cyj4rrP8tDK+T/GIA=
=q6Mo
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jan Kundrát]

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 understanding of how things work is a tad skewed here.

Great, then we don't agree upon this point. Let's talk about it, express
our ideas, opinions and feelings and let the Council decide, okay?

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jan Kundrát]

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 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, this is FUD. Devrel had had a plenty of time to make an action
*and* to talk to infra in the recent case. They had decided *not* to do
that - which means that they didn't consider it apropriate, IMHO.

Or am I really missing something obvious?

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jan Kundrát]

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 reasonable. But the point (again, please see -core) is *who*
should punish you.

> I don't see why this shouldn't be made public. Which part of "be nice to
> each other" bothers you?

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.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ned Ludd]

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 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 understanding of how things work is a tad skewed here.


-- 
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ned Ludd]

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 the proxy
> > relationship to avoid having access cut off for both developers.
> 
> In other words, if suspended dev A notices something's broken, and
> dev B (not suspended) agrees, dev B is required to leave it broken until
> infra makes a decision. I assume that's not the intent, so could that
> sentence please be reworded or dropped?


I dropped it.
It was unofficially decided last week that having to have 
proxy commits monitored for a suspended dev pretty much 
would be a moot point.

-- 
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jon Portnoy]

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.xml everyone wants to replace?

I agree some of the wording should be altered, but I do think it's 
sensible for infra to cover when devrel falls on its rear.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jon Portnoy]

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 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

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Aron Griffis]

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 account when making decisions.

All of this is obvious, except for who is "we"?

> Be respectful. The Gentoo community and its members treat one
> another with respect. 

Odd to make this declarative statement when it isn't true.

> Everyone can make a valuable contribution to Gentoo. 

They can?  Making this kind of feel-good blanket statement just
detracts from the rest of this document.

> We may not always agree, but disagreement is no excuse for
> poor behaviour and poor manners. We might all experience some
> frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to
> turn into a personal attacks. It's important to remember that
> a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not
> a productive one. 

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.

> We expect members of the Gentoo community to be
> respectful when dealing with other contributors as well as with
> people outside the Gentoo project, and with users of Gentoo.

Again, who is "we"?

> Be collaborative. Gentoo and Free Software are about collaboration
> and working together. Collaboration reduces redundancy of work done
> in the Free Software world, and improves the quality of the software
> produced. You should aim to collaborate with other Gentoo
> maintainers, as well as with the upstream community that is
> interested in the work you do. Your work should be done
> transparently and patches from Gentoo should be given back to the
> community when they are made, not just when the distribution
> releases. If you wish to work on new code for existing upstream
> projects, at least keep those projects informed of your ideas and
> progress. It may not be possible to get consensus from upstream or
> even from your colleagues about the correct implementation of an
> idea, so don't feel obliged to have that agreement before you begin,
> but at least keep the outside world informed of your work, and
> publish your work in a way that allows outsiders to test, discuss
> and contribute to your efforts.

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 public consumption.  It has always seemed
to me like the overreactions were the problem.

> When you disagree, consult others. Disagreements, both political and
> technical, happen all the time and the Gentoo community is no
> exception. The important goal is not to avoid disagreements or
> differing views but to resolve them constructively. You should turn
> to the community and to the community process to seek advice and to
> resolve disagreements. We have the Council, Infra, Devrel and Team
> Leaders all of which help you decide the right course for Gentoo.

What do you mean by "turn to the community and to the community
process"?  I'm not sure what that entails.  And I'm really not sure
I understand what the last sentence means.

> Repeated disruptive behaviors will be viewed as a security and
> stability threat to Gentoo.

Classic switching to the passive voice when the actor wishes to be
distanced from the action.  WHO will view these behaviors as
a security and stability threat to Gentoo?  Is this a statement the
existing developers are making?  The foundation?  Infra?

> Your access to Gentoo infrastructure may
> be suspended without notice if it is deemed that you fall into this
> category. 

Again passive voice.  WHO will suspect access without notice?  WHO
will make the decision?  (Clearly infra will implement it.)  And
doesn't "without notice" somehow void the "consult others" bit
earlier?

> If your account is suspended, you will still retain full
> developer status -- you will simply not have access to Gentoo
> infrastructure. You may continue to do development work during your
> suspension. 

This is bogus.  If a person's account is suspended, they don't have
commit access, they're temporarily not a developer.  Mincing words
doesn't change things.

> You may elect to save up your changes until such a point
> where your access has been reinstated, or you may work with another
> developer to have them commit changes on your behalf. 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.

Anybody can submit work to a developer who can proxy that work into
Gentoo.  What is this new proxy approval pro

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Danny van Dyk]

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:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
>
> 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
> -mike

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. There are several occasions 
where a Gentoo developer is asked to initiate publis discussion when he 
introduces something that affects the whole tree. The council demands 14 days 
to publicly discuss GLEPs that shall be voted upon.

But when a document which has such a great impact as this conduct you (and 
others) propose, and which is possibly controversely discussed among 
developers, is just passed by w/o discussion I really start wondering if the 
community aspect  (which is emphasized by this document) is really of 
interest to you.

I understand that you're not happy with the status of developer relation (not 
to be confused with Gentoo DevRel) right now, but please choose another way.

I don't agree with some of the wording of the conduct, mostly with the last 
paragraphs. For example:
>Repeated disruptive behaviors will be viewed as a security and stability
Who is to judge what behavior is disruptive?
>threat to Gentoo. Your access to Gentoo infrastructure may be suspended
>without notice if it is deemed that you fall into this category. If your
This would allow to infra to say: I don't like your way, you're disruptive!
Your access will be suspended. And honestly, i think this is what just 
happened.
>account is suspended, you will still retain full developer status -- you will
>simply not have access to Gentoo infrastructure. You may continue to do
>development work during your suspension. You may elect to save up your
This is awful: "Oh, a suspended developer is _allowed_ to not give his things 
out to the public." Please change remove this first part of this sentence 
completely.
>changes until such a point where your access has been reinstated, or you may
>work with another developer to have them commit changes on your behalf. 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.
IMHO, this is rediculous as well. We already had this discussion during the 
last incident. Infrastrucure has no hold on what and how developers commit 
user contributed changes, as long as these changes are lawful (read: 
license/copyright problems) and no security thread.

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.

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.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Alexandre Buisse]

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 (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 filter) inspect emails sent to all @gentoo.org addresses for
> >>any signs of subversive activity. You could also add a clause saying
> >>that developers must hand over their harddrives to infra upon request so
> >>that security audits can be performed.
> > 
> > 
> > I fail to see how your remark relates to the document. It's not about
> > anti-terrorism measures or anything, it's just about good behaviour so
> > gentoo can work properly and we can all have fun working in it. Or
> > should we start another flame each time a document is posted to -dev?
> 
> Sorry, but you aren't a Gentoo developer and don't have access to some
> mailing list archives. If you were, you'd know. Sure, the part about
> good will etc is good.

Sorry but I am.
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.
I'm growing tired of those constant flames on -dev, on each tiny little
unimportant point. Seriously, I don't think we should spend *that* much
time arguing about the position of a comma in a good conduct document.
We are developers, not lawyers.


> Anyway, I don't think this is a good place for such discusion. -core?

I don't see why this shouldn't be made public. Which part of "be nice to
each other" bothers you?

Regards,
/Alexandre
-- 
Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature.


pgpNDIXV2ZZc4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Marius Mauch]

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 real work
> here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
> 
> 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 two paragraphs aren't really acceptable for a code of conduct
from my POV. And I'm referring to the general meaning there, not the
specific wording.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Harald van D??k]

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 developers.

In other words, if suspended dev A notices something's broken, and
dev B (not suspended) agrees, dev B is required to leave it broken until
infra makes a decision. I assume that's not the intent, so could that
sentence please be reworded or dropped?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jan Kundrát]

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 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
>>that developers must hand over their harddrives to infra upon request so
>>that security audits can be performed.
> 
> 
> I fail to see how your remark relates to the document. It's not about
> anti-terrorism measures or anything, it's just about good behaviour so
> gentoo can work properly and we can all have fun working in it. Or
> should we start another flame each time a document is posted to -dev?

Sorry, but you aren't a Gentoo developer and don't have access to some
mailing list archives. If you were, you'd know. Sure, the part about
good will etc is good.

Anyway, I don't think this is a good place for such discusion. -core?

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Alexandre Buisse]

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
> 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
> that developers must hand over their harddrives to infra upon request so
> that security audits can be performed.

I fail to see how your remark relates to the document. It's not about
anti-terrorism measures or anything, it's just about good behaviour so
gentoo can work properly and we can all have fun working in it. Or
should we start another flame each time a document is posted to -dev?

/Alexandre
-- 
Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature.


pgpkySecpYlb4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Stephen P. Becker]

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.html
> 
> 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
> -mike

I already happen to know a very large number of people are against this
as worded, including myself.  If you don't believe me, simply look back
at the thread discussing Ciaran's access revocation by infra.  Lots of
people didn't like that very much.  Forcing the same bullshit into
policy doesn't change the fact that it is wrong, it merely provides a
way for infra to blow off criticism by saying "RTFM" in the future in
case such an event happens again.

The simple fact is, until devrel has decided somebody has done something
wrong, such pre-emptive strikes against developers are wrong as far as I
am concerned.

-Steve
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[foser]

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 semi-civilized means of minority-control, I'll
pass on it.

The wording of certain phrases in this 'code of conduct' is really
dubious : specific enough to be used for any purpose and vague enough to
hold none of those in control responsible. Take for example the
'Repeated disruptive behaviors..' paragraph.

If you really want to make a serious attempt at a code of conduct, you
keep it simple, you keep it clean. You let the community decide on
contents and don't mix rules with punishments in one and the same
document. If you guys really had understood the Ubuntu contract you
would've never dropped this 'constitution' on -dev like this, especially
not at this time (you know what I mean).

- foser


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ioannis Aslanidis]

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. We are not a company,
we are dedicating our free time to bring things up and running. IMHO,
this proposal will be counter-productive: it's as if I do something for
you for free and you try to rob me in the process.

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.

And calling people who disagree with this terrorists was really a bad
comment.

Jonathan Smith wrote:
> 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
>> that developers must hand over their harddrives to infra upon request so
>> that security audits can be performed.
>>
> 
> Sorry guys, I've been trying to STFU on this entire matter, especially
> since I haven't been particularly active lately, but Ciaran has a point
> here. There is such a thing as taking things too far.
> 
> I'd especially note the clause "If your account is suspended, you will
> still retain full developer status -- you will simply not have access to
> Gentoo infrastructure." How the #$%^* can you be a developer with "full
> status" without having access to the tree (or toucan, or test boxes,
> or...)?
> 
> In any case, I really wish everyone would just lighten the fuck up and
> go back to why you all joined Gentoo to begin with... coding, hacking,
> helping the users, etc.
> 
> -smithj
> 
> PS: I guess I'm a terrorist.


-- 
Ioannis Aslanidis

Gentoo Staff
Gentoo Linux
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jonathan Smith]

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
that developers must hand over their harddrives to infra upon request so
that security audits can be performed.



Sorry guys, I've been trying to STFU on this entire matter, especially 
since I haven't been particularly active lately, but Ciaran has a point 
here. There is such a thing as taking things too far.


I'd especially note the clause "If your account is suspended, you will 
still retain full developer status -- you will simply not have access to 
Gentoo infrastructure." How the #$%^* can you be a developer with "full 
status" without having access to the tree (or toucan, or test boxes, or...)?


In any case, I really wish everyone would just lighten the fuck up and 
go back to why you all joined Gentoo to begin with... coding, hacking, 
helping the users, etc.


-smithj

PS: I guess I'm a terrorist.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Ciaran McCreesh]

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 filter) inspect emails sent to all @gentoo.org addresses for
any signs of subversive activity. You could also add a clause saying
that developers must hand over their harddrives to infra upon request so
that security audits can be performed.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat)
Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Jochen Maes]

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 Social
Contract.  Our social contract shouldn't just be between Gentoo and
our users.  It should be amongst ourselves too.

Best regards,
Stu

 


Stu,

great idea!

Solar,

thanks for the work and also great idea!

--
"Defer no time, delays have dangerous ends"
"Ne humanus crede"

Jochen Maes 
Gentoo Linux

Gentoo Belgium
http://sejo.be
http://gentoo.be
http://gentoo.org



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[Stuart Herbert]

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 contract shouldn't just be between Gentoo and
our users.  It should be amongst ourselves too.

Best regards,
Stu

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

[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:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html

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
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list