Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
Perhaps I'm just so much used to seeing automatic signatures separated by "-- \r\n" and consider non-separated text as "typed by the author". (And yes, Chris, I need beer from pubs :) ) Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
Jan Kundrát wrote: > Perhaps he feels in such a way because your mail wasn't really "please > talk about it elsewhere", but rather a "warning" (at least that's how I > perceived it) and you signed it as a "Gentoo Developer Relations Lead". > I hope this helps you understand why someone might have such an opinion :). Jan, The mail by Christina wasn't perfect, neither was your perception. We're all human and we all tend to get carried away with various things. For the nth time, I'll stress that email and IRC are text mediums...there is no tone, no gestures, nothing. IF I were to sign this email with the following : Infra Monkey with Root on xyz.gentoo.org Doesn't mean I'm going to go terminate your account or whatever I say has everything to do with my position with some team in Gentoo. Regards, -- Shyam Mani | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> docs-team | http://gdp.gentoo.org devrel | http://devrel.gentoo.org infra | http://infrastructure.gentoo.org GPG Key| 0xFDD0E345 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 23:27 +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote: > and you signed it as a "Gentoo Developer Relations Lead". Umm... because that's her .sig? Wow. I'm really surprised that this concept is foreign to people. Are you saying that you need beer from the pub because of your signature? Are you speaking on behalf of pubs? Beer? Maybe mouths? (Yes, you can quickly see just how asinine the assumption is...) -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
I'm adding Developer Relations to this email and will be filing a formal complaint against you. Have a good day. lol. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
Chrissy Fullam wrote: > I appreciate your opinion and your right to have such an opinion, however, I > have a hard time understanding your reason for said opinion. I would expect > any person to be able to say 'enough' and 'lets take this elsewhere.' Perhaps he feels in such a way because your mail wasn't really "please talk about it elsewhere", but rather a "warning" (at least that's how I perceived it) and you signed it as a "Gentoo Developer Relations Lead". I hope this helps you understand why someone might have such an opinion :). Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 22:42 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 09-01-2008 13:03:13 -0800, Chrissy Fullam wrote: > > You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which quite > > frankly should be kept off this mailing list. His negative experiences > > throughout all of 2007 with Conflict Resolution and consequently Developer > > Relations justify any of your alleged 'attacks on devrel.' Let's take this > > discussion elsewhere. > > > Kind regards, > > Christina Fullam > > Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations > > IMHO, you have a very big conflict of interest in this issue. Why do Umm... and? Where in policy does it say that someone *must* remove themselves from a *conversation* where there *might* be a conflict of interest or bias? See, I had assumed that we all were supposed to respect each other's ability to look at the *facts* and *evidence* and make decisions based on said facts and evidence. I mean, if we all stopped participating in conversations where we had our own personal bias, there'd be no need for this list, our IRC channels, or any shared communications medium. See, it is *expected* that people are going to be biased. Everyone will have their own bias. It is how people *act* that makes the difference. Of course, I guess that only applies when it has nothing to do with me, huh? > you (for the second time) handle a case like this one, and not someone > else from devrel? Like who, exactly? Can you even tell who is active in Developer Relations? The Conflict Resolution team is *exactly* Christel, who is pretty much AWOL (not that I blame her... :P) and Ferris. > I have a hard time to take your message as an objective and unbiased > one. So? You mean the fact that I've had numerous verifiable issues with Developer Relations is somehow a matter of opinion that is being based on bias? I guess the emails that I sent to Developer Relations about issues that I was having *long before Chrissy ever became a developer* are all a part of her "bias" towards me and completely fabricated? What about the fact that several other members of Developer Relations have been reviewing and agreeing with all of her determinations? I find this whole thing humorous. None of you know a damn thing about Chrissy and my relationship, yet you make your assumptions. Keep on assuming. I really couldn't care less. It's this exact form of double standard and using things only when they fit what you want that keeps things from actually getting done, especially when they're untrue or based on faulty assumptions. I guess that's just business as usual around here, though. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
> Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 09-01-2008 13:03:13 -0800, Chrissy Fullam wrote: > > You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which > > quite frankly should be kept off this mailing list. ... > > Let's take this discussion elsewhere. > > IMHO, you have a very big conflict of interest in this issue. > Why do you (for the second time) handle a case like this > one, and not someone else from devrel? > > I have a hard time to take your message as an objective and > unbiased one. I apologize if my email was not clear enough for you. I never said that I would, nor have any intention to, handle this case personally. I do however feel that a dispute/disagreement between two developers should not be taken to the mailing lists. Please let me be clear, I did not say I would personally handle this nor do I have any intention of personally handling this. My intent is to assign someone to attempt mediation. If mediation efforts fail, it will be escalated as per policy. I appreciate your opinion and your right to have such an opinion, however, I have a hard time understanding your reason for said opinion. I would expect any person to be able to say 'enough' and 'lets take this elsewhere.' If you feel that a person in DevRel can have no relationship with any other developer, friendship or otherwise, then you are sadly mistaken. And having any sort of relationship with any other developer does not then cloud your ability to think; if it does then that person has a host of problems to contend with, Gentoo being the least of them. Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
On 09-01-2008 13:03:13 -0800, Chrissy Fullam wrote: > You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which quite > frankly should be kept off this mailing list. His negative experiences > throughout all of 2007 with Conflict Resolution and consequently Developer > Relations justify any of your alleged 'attacks on devrel.' Let's take this > discussion elsewhere. > Kind regards, > Christina Fullam > Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations IMHO, you have a very big conflict of interest in this issue. Why do you (for the second time) handle a case like this one, and not someone else from devrel? I have a hard time to take your message as an objective and unbiased one. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
RE: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
> > > Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > > they get to devrel because you ensured there would be no one to
> > > catch them --- you are the one who wanted to kill off the
> > > proctors, after all.
> >
> > Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > ...and the finger-pointing starts... Bravo!
>
> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> To the extent you see this as a personal attack, I apologize.
> I never intended it as such. I was only recalling your email
> from 5 June
Fmccor, your comment about wolf 'being the one who wanted to kill off the
proctors' really served no purpose to the point; that being that the
proctors are no more and your personal curiosity as to how the CoC should
now be enforced. Adding no benefit to the point makes your comments useless
information. Your wording ('you ensured' and 'you are the one') only
furthers to make it useless information and appear very personal. 'You'
versus 'council' for example. You may honestly not intend it as such but
please be aware that it is easily interpreted that way when a simple change
of wording might have avoided this.
Wolf31o2 is not the council member who called to vote to disband the
proctors, and he is only one of five council members who voted to disband
the proctors. I myself had private conversations with council members OTHER
than wolf31o2 who had expressed the desire to drop the proctor project. The
combination of those things justifies me simply stating that your statement
is incorrect. Sure he sent that lovely email that you provided us all;
doesn't mean much though as he's not the only one who said those things. He
took a stance, as a council member should do, I mean isnt that why we have
council? And he is one person who can contribute but not solely rule, isnt
that why we have several council members instead of just one person? Quit
giving him 'credit' for the entire thing.
> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> As for filing a devrel complaint, do so if you must. But as
> you know, policy strongly suggests you should talk to me
> first so we can figure out where the miscommunication is. We
> also might discuss why you chose to hang an attack on devrel
> onto my rather innocuous musings.
You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which quite
frankly should be kept off this mailing list. His negative experiences
throughout all of 2007 with Conflict Resolution and consequently Developer
Relations justify any of your alleged 'attacks on devrel.' Let's take this
discussion elsewhere.
And a final note, you have had to justify your 'innocuous musings' a few
times recently, on this list and other Gentoo lists. Perhaps that could be a
sign that you should mull over and validate those musings yourself before
throwing them at the rest of us. Might cause fewer 'misunderstandings' with
regards to your statements.
Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 11:51 -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 14:00 +, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > they get to devrel because you ensured there would be no one to catch
> > them --- you are the one who wanted to kill off the proctors, after
> > all.
>
> ...and the finger-pointing starts... Bravo!
>
> I never have been able to figure out what the hell I did to you to make
> you feel like you need to personally attack me every step of the way,
> but I'm not putting up with it, anymore.
>
> I'm adding Developer Relations to this email and will be filing a formal
> complaint against you. Have a good day.
>
To the extent you see this as a personal attack, I apologize. I never
intended it as such. I was only recalling your email from 5 June which
reads:
On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 21:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:44:23 +0100
> Roy Bamford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For that reason alone, it should normally be avoided in international
> > forums such as are provided by Gentoo.
>
> Why yes! Gentoo needs to be one hundred percent serious and entirely
> not fun. Anyone saying anything remotely amusing needs to be shut down
> by the proctors immediately. Please keep up the good work.
I really have to agree with you. The proctors have completely lost
their way. They are ineffective. They tend to compound the problems
they were created to stop. They are slow. They have not prevented
anything, which was the reason for their creation. Rather, what they
*have* done is stifle conversation, piss off people, get in the way of
Developer Relations reports, and otherwise making developers feel like
they don't want to participate in our official discussion channels.
What do I think needs to be done?
The proctors project needs to go away. It simply wasn't implemented in
the way the Council had hoped and has proven to be more harmful than the
original problems to morale and inter-developer trust. While the
individual members might be doing what they think is best and trying
their best, they've failed at the goals of improving our communications
channels.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation
=
From this I inferred you were the one who wanted to kill off the proctors. I
am not attacking you: I am saying there is no way to catch CoC violations
because the mechanism for that was the proctors, we don't have any proctors,
and it seems to me ("The proctors project needs to go away") that you were
instrumental in that. If any of this is incorrect, I'll retract it, but I am
trying to be factually correct and what I have is the above email.
As for filing a devrel complaint, do so if you must. But as you know, policy
strongly suggests you should talk to me first so we can figure out where the
miscommunication is. We also might discuss why you chose to hang an attack on
devrel onto my rather innocuous musings.
Sorry for any confusion,
Regards,
Ferris
--
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 14:00 +, Ferris McCormick wrote: > they get to devrel because you ensured there would be no one to catch > them --- you are the one who wanted to kill off the proctors, after > all. ...and the finger-pointing starts... Bravo! I never have been able to figure out what the hell I did to you to make you feel like you need to personally attack me every step of the way, but I'm not putting up with it, anymore. I'm adding Developer Relations to this email and will be filing a formal complaint against you. Have a good day. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
Ferris McCormick wrote: > With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors anymore to > enforce > the CoC. The perception is that they aren't/weren't _exactly_ needed as they are, either because nobody wants the secret policy feeling or because self regulation is working almost nicely. > Thus, things we would expect the proctors to catch and handle under CoC > get sent to devrel instead. All I am doing is wondering out loud (now that > CoC > is coming alive again) if we should start processing these under CoC rules. > I'm > asking Council because CoC belongs to Council, but I do not expect a ruling, > just perhaps an interesting discussion. See, these things can't be caught > before > they get to devrel because you ensured there would be no one to catch them --- > you are the one who wanted to kill off the proctors, after all. Item already present I think. > I am asking a question as a member of the devrel confres subproject and as > an interested developer. you know the channel and the time ^^; lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
RE: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting
> Ferris McCormick wrote: > With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors > anymore to enforce the CoC. Thus, things we would expect the > proctors to catch and handle under CoC get sent to devrel > instead. All I am doing is wondering out loud (now that CoC > is coming alive again) if we should start processing these > under CoC rules. I'm asking Council because CoC belongs to > Council, but I do not expect a ruling, just perhaps an > interesting discussion. See, these things can't be caught > before they get to devrel because you ensured there would be > no one to catch them --- you are the one who wanted to kill > off the proctors, after all. Please lay off the personal attacks here; it's getting beyond ridiculous. Wolf31o2 is not the only council member who wanted to 'kill off the proctors', see below: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070712-summary.txt - Kingtaco wanted a vote to cancel the proctors. robbat2 wanted them to just die quietly if no material was forthcoming. Others called for a definate stand rather than the "die quietly". All 5 attending council members voted in favour of dropping the proctors. Seems to me that every council member in attendance decided they wanted to 'kill off the proctors.' Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
