Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)
On 17-12-09 16:29:24, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:22:32PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017, 19:06:36 CET schrieb William L. Thomson > > Jr.: > > > > > > The day everyone wanted has come, after this message. I will > > > unsubscribe not to return. You all won in 2008, and again in 2017. > > > Though this time I will not be back. I tried more than most anyone else > > > would for a very long time. Gentoo wins I lose, I am fine with that. > > > > > > Please do not contact me off list in IRC or at all. I am done with the > > > Gentoo community! > > > > > > Independent of whether William now unsubscribed or not, he's now enjoying a > > lengthy (1 year until review) vacation from all Gentoo communication > > channels. > > > > > > -- > > Andreas K. Hüttel > > dilfri...@gentoo.org > > Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice) > > So, mgorny threatened to leave if something wasn't done, right? I saw > the IRC conversation about unsubscribing from gentoo-dev, as well. IRC > is not private, for the record. Other developers are required to > subscribe to -dev, and are expected to follow it so they stay informed. > If they missed something covered on the list, they are directed to the > archives and (usually) laughed at. I see no reason for this expectation > to be waived for any single developer. Do I get a free pass if I don't > like what someone says? > > It's not enough to let wltjr leave on his own; you had to create a ban > and add a smug, tongue-in-cheek mail to it to maintain the image of > doing something. Quite hypocritical of comrel's attitude of secrecy to > suddenly announce a ban. It seems to me that secrecy is only adopted > when it suits those who stand to benefit from it. > > Great things coming from Gentoo "leadership" here. What will you do when > mgorny starts targeting developers and pitching tantrums over them, too? > Are we going to stratify developership further, too? It seems rather > clear to me that a few individuals see themselves as the owners of this > distro and bend it to suit their whims, using bureacracy to obscure > their actions and motivations, segment the community, and block those > less experienced. This is precisely why we have unmotivated developers > and a bevy of unmaintained packages; nobody wants to contribute to a > distro that treats its users (and developers) so poorly. > > A distro should never bend its entire social structure to protect the > feelings of one surly developer (or his/her entourage), but naturally > since every council member is friends with mgorny and comrel is afraid > to take any action against him, they'll make exceptions to established > procedures and ignore any complaints about the way he treats others. > > Software cannot fix wetware. Plenty of developers get to deal with > mgorny's aggressive and insulting tone, yet nothing happens. Gee... I > wonder why. Maybe because the upper parts of Gentoo are riddled with > cronyism. > > "Rules for thee, not for me." > > It's clear to anyone with eyeballs that there is preferential treatment > and inconsistent enforcement of rules in this community, and the people > in a position to fix it, won't, because they in fact benefit from this. > > Unfortunately, GLEP 39 does not have a section on recalling or > impeachment... This whole situation highlights why the Council has no > business sticking its head into non-technical matters. It's clearly not > up to the task. It's no surprise, since technical skill does not > guarantee or even imply social skill. (or vice-versa) > > I'm tired of people beating around the bush and the facile attempts of > tact: why do you give special treatment to certain members of this > community? Would you have done anything different if it were me or some > other developer who was proposing this change? > > It wouldn't have made it to the Council agenda if he didn't write it, > period. Everyone else would've been told to suck it up and deal with it. > And knowing how the Council is, in a few days we'll all get to deal with > the churn of mailing lists to protect one person's ego. Sad. > zlg has made comments about mgorny that he as been asked to verify. As there has been no response to the request for more information, the Trustees are retracting the comment and wish to apologize to mgorny for the inconvenience. -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) President, Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)
On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 21:22:32 +0100 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017, 19:06:36 CET schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.: > > > > The day everyone wanted has come, after this message. I will > > unsubscribe not to return. You all won in 2008, and again in 2017. > > Though this time I will not be back. I tried more than most anyone else > > would for a very long time. Gentoo wins I lose, I am fine with that. > > > > Please do not contact me off list in IRC or at all. I am done with the > > Gentoo community! > > > Independent of whether William now unsubscribed or not, he's now enjoying a > lengthy (1 year until review) vacation from all Gentoo communication channels. > Thank you very much. Mail list are becoming readable again (: Best regards, Andrew Savchenko pgpn21xIVRZHc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)
On 12/10/2017 03:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Your attack on me is fully unfounded and completely inappropriate. FYI, > just let me correct a few facts here: --- pruned --- > 3. The agenda item wasn't expressing 'feelings of one developer', as you > know it. It was written by me because I found the time to prepare > a rationale of *facts* to support it. Don't shoot the messenger. Yes. I'm a fan of transparency, but there are many people with passionate views, so sometimes it's harder to have a calm discussion about social matters. If / when these discussions happen, remarks about various actions by specific people tends to escalate hostility. On the other hand, generalizations about how gentoo-related communication should occur isn't a "shots fired" or "touchy subject" situation. TL;DR - Public fighting doesn't help gentoo. -kuzetsa P.S. I'm trying to stay out of these contentious topics. Also, your composure / tone seems fine to me, mgorny. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > Well, let's consider the order of events here: > ... > This looks awfully clear to me. >... > I'm not focused on the ban, or whether it was deserved. That's exactly what you've done here. You've connected a bunch of dots that you can see, and don't consider that there may be dots that you don't see. >> >> And the only item recently submitted that is relevant is the item for >> the splitting of the mailing list, and the Council hasn't even met to >> make any decisions one way or another. You're exasperated over >> something the Council hasn't even done. > > Again, the Council approves most things that come down the line, > especially if it's from mgorny. > You've read this situation fairly poorly, IMO. Certainly many of mgorny's proposals have been approved by the council over the last few years, but go back and review them. They're mostly technical proposals, and I think you would agree that his proposals tend to be technically strong. I realize that isn't what you're arguing, but you can't extrapolate from a history of approving technical proposals to an assumption that the Council would approve literally any controversial social proposal he makes. I have had no access to any internal/private deliberations any members of the council have had over this issue, and the same access as you to any public statements they have made over the last few weeks. I would estimate the likely possible outcomes and their probabilities as: 0% - Splitting of gentoo-dev into two lists as proposed. 20% - no resolutions accepted this meeting 10% - A statement encouraging the moderation of the gentoo-dev list once infra can enable this. 50% - A general statement indicating that so far there hasn't actually been much significant ban evasion going on, and that for the time being asking community members to respect any bans should continue. Community members should try to abide by the comrel process, and not take matters into their own hands by participating in flame wars. Gentoo-dev should be focused on technical matters, non-technical matters ought to go to gentoo-project, and comrel is encouraged to remind individuals of when they're off-topic even if well-intentioned. 20% - No formal proposal, but an intention communicated to revive something like the proctors project to allow comrel to focus on bigger issues (harassment, ongoing patterns, etc). The proctors would be much more proactive in reaching out to community members who are abusing lists/irc/etc, and likely empowered to hand out temporary bans/etc of fairly short duration, enforced either voluntarily or using technical means (though presumably ban evasion would be viewed as a more serious offense). Knowing most of the council members reasonably well I think it is pretty unlikely that anything drastic will be done, and a few have already gone on the record publicly as not being in favor of splitting the list. > > You told me a few paragraphs ago that it wouldn't be worth it anyway, > and now you're telling me to run for the Council? Which is it? Both, these statements are not contradictory. If you feel that strongly that the Council is out of line you should run. Then you will be able to see firsthand how the rest of the community feels about your approach. I could be wrong but I think you'd be soundly defeated assuming most of the incumbents haven't left by then. >From the standpoint of getting your way it wouldn't be worth it. From the standpoint of giving everybody a chance to vote on your opinions it would be. IMO there really isn't anything you can do to get your way, because it is opposed by most of the community, albeit silently. That said, I do have to acknowledge that my email was indirect. That tends to be my style - I usually try to leave conclusions unsaid. On a list whose participants vary greatly in language skills, technical proficiency, general intelligence, value/culture, etc perhaps it really isn't the best way to communicate. (There I go again being indirect...) I need to work on that... -- Rich
Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu sob, 09.12.2017 o godzinie 16∶29 -0800, użytkownik Daniel > Campbell napisał: >> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:22:32PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> > Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017, 19:06:36 CET schrieb William L. Thomson >> > Jr.: >> > > >> > > The day everyone wanted has come, after this message. I will >> > > unsubscribe not to return. You all won in 2008, and again in 2017. >> > > Though this time I will not be back. I tried more than most anyone else >> > > would for a very long time. Gentoo wins I lose, I am fine with that. >> > > >> > > Please do not contact me off list in IRC or at all. I am done with the >> > > Gentoo community! >> > >> > >> > Independent of whether William now unsubscribed or not, he's now enjoying a >> > lengthy (1 year until review) vacation from all Gentoo communication >> > channels. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Andreas K. Hüttel >> > dilfri...@gentoo.org >> > Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice) >> >> So, mgorny threatened to leave if something wasn't done, right? I saw >> the IRC conversation about unsubscribing from gentoo-dev, as well. IRC >> is not private, for the record. Other developers are required to >> subscribe to -dev, and are expected to follow it so they stay informed. >> If they missed something covered on the list, they are directed to the >> archives and (usually) laughed at. I see no reason for this expectation >> to be waived for any single developer. Do I get a free pass if I don't >> like what someone says? >> >> It's not enough to let wltjr leave on his own; you had to create a ban >> and add a smug, tongue-in-cheek mail to it to maintain the image of >> doing something. Quite hypocritical of comrel's attitude of secrecy to >> suddenly announce a ban. It seems to me that secrecy is only adopted >> when it suits those who stand to benefit from it. >> >> Great things coming from Gentoo "leadership" here. What will you do when >> mgorny starts targeting developers and pitching tantrums over them, too? >> Are we going to stratify developership further, too? It seems rather >> clear to me that a few individuals see themselves as the owners of this >> distro and bend it to suit their whims, using bureacracy to obscure >> their actions and motivations, segment the community, and block those >> less experienced. This is precisely why we have unmotivated developers >> and a bevy of unmaintained packages; nobody wants to contribute to a >> distro that treats its users (and developers) so poorly. >> >> A distro should never bend its entire social structure to protect the >> feelings of one surly developer (or his/her entourage), but naturally >> since every council member is friends with mgorny and comrel is afraid >> to take any action against him, they'll make exceptions to established >> procedures and ignore any complaints about the way he treats others. >> >> Software cannot fix wetware. Plenty of developers get to deal with >> mgorny's aggressive and insulting tone, yet nothing happens. Gee... I >> wonder why. Maybe because the upper parts of Gentoo are riddled with >> cronyism. >> >> "Rules for thee, not for me." >> >> It's clear to anyone with eyeballs that there is preferential treatment >> and inconsistent enforcement of rules in this community, and the people >> in a position to fix it, won't, because they in fact benefit from this. >> >> Unfortunately, GLEP 39 does not have a section on recalling or >> impeachment... This whole situation highlights why the Council has no >> business sticking its head into non-technical matters. It's clearly not >> up to the task. It's no surprise, since technical skill does not >> guarantee or even imply social skill. (or vice-versa) >> >> I'm tired of people beating around the bush and the facile attempts of >> tact: why do you give special treatment to certain members of this >> community? Would you have done anything different if it were me or some >> other developer who was proposing this change? >> >> It wouldn't have made it to the Council agenda if he didn't write it, >> period. Everyone else would've been told to suck it up and deal with it. >> And knowing how the Council is, in a few days we'll all get to deal with >> the churn of mailing lists to protect one person's ego. Sad. >> > > Your attack on me is fully unfounded and completely inappropriate. FYI, > just let me correct a few facts here: > > 1. ComRel made its decision long before the discussion was even started > (and I was unaware of it as well), and -- unless you presume they have > time travellers there -- had nothing to do with it. > > 2. I disagree with the way of announcing the ban as well. I had nothing > to do with that. > > 3. The agenda item wasn't expressing 'feelings of one developer', as you > know it. It was written by me because I found the time to prepare > a rationale of *facts* to support it. Don't shoot the messenger. > Most of what you provided
Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)
W dniu sob, 09.12.2017 o godzinie 16∶29 -0800, użytkownik Daniel Campbell napisał: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:22:32PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017, 19:06:36 CET schrieb William L. Thomson > > Jr.: > > > > > > The day everyone wanted has come, after this message. I will > > > unsubscribe not to return. You all won in 2008, and again in 2017. > > > Though this time I will not be back. I tried more than most anyone else > > > would for a very long time. Gentoo wins I lose, I am fine with that. > > > > > > Please do not contact me off list in IRC or at all. I am done with the > > > Gentoo community! > > > > > > Independent of whether William now unsubscribed or not, he's now enjoying a > > lengthy (1 year until review) vacation from all Gentoo communication > > channels. > > > > > > -- > > Andreas K. Hüttel > > dilfri...@gentoo.org > > Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice) > > So, mgorny threatened to leave if something wasn't done, right? I saw > the IRC conversation about unsubscribing from gentoo-dev, as well. IRC > is not private, for the record. Other developers are required to > subscribe to -dev, and are expected to follow it so they stay informed. > If they missed something covered on the list, they are directed to the > archives and (usually) laughed at. I see no reason for this expectation > to be waived for any single developer. Do I get a free pass if I don't > like what someone says? > > It's not enough to let wltjr leave on his own; you had to create a ban > and add a smug, tongue-in-cheek mail to it to maintain the image of > doing something. Quite hypocritical of comrel's attitude of secrecy to > suddenly announce a ban. It seems to me that secrecy is only adopted > when it suits those who stand to benefit from it. > > Great things coming from Gentoo "leadership" here. What will you do when > mgorny starts targeting developers and pitching tantrums over them, too? > Are we going to stratify developership further, too? It seems rather > clear to me that a few individuals see themselves as the owners of this > distro and bend it to suit their whims, using bureacracy to obscure > their actions and motivations, segment the community, and block those > less experienced. This is precisely why we have unmotivated developers > and a bevy of unmaintained packages; nobody wants to contribute to a > distro that treats its users (and developers) so poorly. > > A distro should never bend its entire social structure to protect the > feelings of one surly developer (or his/her entourage), but naturally > since every council member is friends with mgorny and comrel is afraid > to take any action against him, they'll make exceptions to established > procedures and ignore any complaints about the way he treats others. > > Software cannot fix wetware. Plenty of developers get to deal with > mgorny's aggressive and insulting tone, yet nothing happens. Gee... I > wonder why. Maybe because the upper parts of Gentoo are riddled with > cronyism. > > "Rules for thee, not for me." > > It's clear to anyone with eyeballs that there is preferential treatment > and inconsistent enforcement of rules in this community, and the people > in a position to fix it, won't, because they in fact benefit from this. > > Unfortunately, GLEP 39 does not have a section on recalling or > impeachment... This whole situation highlights why the Council has no > business sticking its head into non-technical matters. It's clearly not > up to the task. It's no surprise, since technical skill does not > guarantee or even imply social skill. (or vice-versa) > > I'm tired of people beating around the bush and the facile attempts of > tact: why do you give special treatment to certain members of this > community? Would you have done anything different if it were me or some > other developer who was proposing this change? > > It wouldn't have made it to the Council agenda if he didn't write it, > period. Everyone else would've been told to suck it up and deal with it. > And knowing how the Council is, in a few days we'll all get to deal with > the churn of mailing lists to protect one person's ego. Sad. > Your attack on me is fully unfounded and completely inappropriate. FYI, just let me correct a few facts here: 1. ComRel made its decision long before the discussion was even started (and I was unaware of it as well), and -- unless you presume they have time travellers there -- had nothing to do with it. 2. I disagree with the way of announcing the ban as well. I had nothing to do with that. 3. The agenda item wasn't expressing 'feelings of one developer', as you know it. It was written by me because I found the time to prepare a rationale of *facts* to support it. Don't shoot the messenger. 4. Finally, if you really hate me so much, you could at least bother to check the facts instead of publicly insulting me based purely on lies. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 08:13:18PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > > > Other developers are required to subscribe to -dev, and are > > expected to follow it so they stay informed. > > Developers are not required to subscribe to -dev. > > > If they missed something covered on the list, they are directed to the > > archives and (usually) laughed at. > > Correct. While nobody is required to follow the lists, acting out of > ignorance usually doesn't impress others. Devs are expected to be > adults and figure out what they need to follow based on what they > intend to contribute to. -core and -dev-announce are the only > required subscriptions. > > > > > Great things coming from Gentoo "leadership" here. What will you do when > > mgorny starts targeting developers and pitching tantrums over them, too? > > You act as if this was the only reason that comrel took action. In > the cases of appeals I've seen I've yet to see a case where there > wasn't something else going on behind the scene that wasn't reasonably > severe when they've taken action. I can't vouch for their reasons in > this case as I'm not privy to them, and I imagine they're not going to > be made public. Well, let's consider the order of events here: 1. wltjr and others appear on the ML 2. Drama 3. mgorny suggests some change in structure to avoid dealing with said people. 4. more drama 5. mgorny publicly insults comrel, accusing them of doing nothing 6. mgorny publishes formal plan to reform our mailing lists 7. more drama 8. comrel bans wltjr 9. mgorny's plan is put on Council agenda 10. comrel *mails to let everyone know wltjr was banned*, despite prior claims of valuing privacy and secrecy 11. you are here This looks awfully clear to me. I'm pointing out behavior that looks a lot like one person twisting the social structure to suit their desires. This concerns me because our community will be damaged by his plan, and it is only the first step. In the second step, he will turn against developers as well. But not you and his other buddies. Just the ones *he* thinks are a problem. > > > This is precisely why we have unmotivated developers > > and a bevy of unmaintained packages; nobody wants to contribute to a > > distro that treats its users (and developers) so poorly. > > Go ahead and cite the list of people who have been banned in the last > decade. You won't run out of fingers on one hand. Some might cry > about it for months, but good luck finding another distro that hasn't > banned twice as many in the same span of years. > > And keep in mind that failing to take action isn't without > consequences. When somebody is harassing somebody else (and sometimes > more than one other) you don't really get a choice about whether > somebody is going to end up leaving, whether of their own accord or > not. That is a situation I've seen happen more than once around here > behind the scenes. Again, I have no specific knowledge about this > particular comrel action - I'm talking about situations I've seen in > the past. I'm not focused on the ban, or whether it was deserved. That's a separate subject. I'm pointing out behaviors that damage our image, our credibility, and morale. I'm calling out unequal enforcement and favoritism; these are things that you won't find in any records, because the existence of such records would damn those culpable. The fact that comrel has never acted against mgorny strongly indicates that they do not care about the way he treats others. He is kept because of his technical skill. Others do not get this convenience; we are accountable for the code *and* the words that we write. You're blind if you don't see this. > > > A distro should never bend its entire social structure to protect the > > feelings of one surly developer (or his/her entourage), > > Certainly, and that works both ways. > > > but naturally > > since every council member is friends with mgorny and comrel is afraid > > to take any action against him, they'll make exceptions to established > > procedures and ignore any complaints about the way he treats others. > > Considering that he won a significantly contested election to Council, > I suspect that more people around here approve of mgorny than just the > members of the council. And I can certainly vouch that not all > council members are necessarily fans of some of his actions, though I > suspect that his technical contributions are praised by just about all > (rightly, IMO). > > I've yet to see a discussion between Council members where people were > strongly playing favorites the way you imply. I'm not criticizing any code he's written. I do not have the same background, nor the same open schedule needed to reach that level of skill yet. This isn't a thread about code review. The fact you're trying to change the subject isn't helping you. Can we suddenly ignore it when someone's an asshole as long as they com
Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > Other developers are required to subscribe to -dev, and are > expected to follow it so they stay informed. Developers are not required to subscribe to -dev. > If they missed something covered on the list, they are directed to the > archives and (usually) laughed at. Correct. While nobody is required to follow the lists, acting out of ignorance usually doesn't impress others. Devs are expected to be adults and figure out what they need to follow based on what they intend to contribute to. -core and -dev-announce are the only required subscriptions. > > Great things coming from Gentoo "leadership" here. What will you do when > mgorny starts targeting developers and pitching tantrums over them, too? You act as if this was the only reason that comrel took action. In the cases of appeals I've seen I've yet to see a case where there wasn't something else going on behind the scene that wasn't reasonably severe when they've taken action. I can't vouch for their reasons in this case as I'm not privy to them, and I imagine they're not going to be made public. > This is precisely why we have unmotivated developers > and a bevy of unmaintained packages; nobody wants to contribute to a > distro that treats its users (and developers) so poorly. Go ahead and cite the list of people who have been banned in the last decade. You won't run out of fingers on one hand. Some might cry about it for months, but good luck finding another distro that hasn't banned twice as many in the same span of years. And keep in mind that failing to take action isn't without consequences. When somebody is harassing somebody else (and sometimes more than one other) you don't really get a choice about whether somebody is going to end up leaving, whether of their own accord or not. That is a situation I've seen happen more than once around here behind the scenes. Again, I have no specific knowledge about this particular comrel action - I'm talking about situations I've seen in the past. > A distro should never bend its entire social structure to protect the > feelings of one surly developer (or his/her entourage), Certainly, and that works both ways. > but naturally > since every council member is friends with mgorny and comrel is afraid > to take any action against him, they'll make exceptions to established > procedures and ignore any complaints about the way he treats others. Considering that he won a significantly contested election to Council, I suspect that more people around here approve of mgorny than just the members of the council. And I can certainly vouch that not all council members are necessarily fans of some of his actions, though I suspect that his technical contributions are praised by just about all (rightly, IMO). I've yet to see a discussion between Council members where people were strongly playing favorites the way you imply. > Unfortunately, GLEP 39 does not have a section on recalling or > impeachment... This whole debate has been going on for over a year, and there has been an election in the interim. Do you really think that a majority of developers somehow missed the hundreds of posts on -dev the last time this debate happened? I'm not sure why you think a recall would succeed even if one were possible. Besides, the council hasn't even made any decisions here. This matter was never appealed to the council, so it seems a bit silly to hold them accountable. > This whole situation highlights why the Council has no > business sticking its head into non-technical matters. It's clearly not > up to the task. It's no surprise, since technical skill does not > guarantee or even imply social skill. (or vice-versa) Dealing with social issues is a major part of the Council's purpose, per GLEP 39. I don't think the developers were blind to this in the last election, especially considering all the fiasco this was causing in the months leading up to the election. And again, this particular issue was never appealed to the Council. I'm not sure where else you would see something like this appealed. The Trustees have struggled with simply filing the tax returns. If you don't think that somebody can have both technical and social skills, I'm not sure why you think that somebody could have both financial/legal and social skills. > Would you have done anything different if it were me or some > other developer who was proposing this change? What change are you proposing? > It wouldn't have made it to the Council agenda if he didn't write it, > period. Everyone else would've been told to suck it up and deal with it. This is silly. Go ahead and find a single example of ANYTHING submitted by ANYBODY for the Council agenda which didn't make it onto the agenda in the last five years. I can't vouch for how things worked a decade ago but the process is basically that if somebody replies to the call for agenda items, it goes on the agenda. That doe
Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:22:32PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017, 19:06:36 CET schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.: > > > > The day everyone wanted has come, after this message. I will > > unsubscribe not to return. You all won in 2008, and again in 2017. > > Though this time I will not be back. I tried more than most anyone else > > would for a very long time. Gentoo wins I lose, I am fine with that. > > > > Please do not contact me off list in IRC or at all. I am done with the > > Gentoo community! > > > Independent of whether William now unsubscribed or not, he's now enjoying a > lengthy (1 year until review) vacation from all Gentoo communication channels. > > > -- > Andreas K. Hüttel > dilfri...@gentoo.org > Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice) So, mgorny threatened to leave if something wasn't done, right? I saw the IRC conversation about unsubscribing from gentoo-dev, as well. IRC is not private, for the record. Other developers are required to subscribe to -dev, and are expected to follow it so they stay informed. If they missed something covered on the list, they are directed to the archives and (usually) laughed at. I see no reason for this expectation to be waived for any single developer. Do I get a free pass if I don't like what someone says? It's not enough to let wltjr leave on his own; you had to create a ban and add a smug, tongue-in-cheek mail to it to maintain the image of doing something. Quite hypocritical of comrel's attitude of secrecy to suddenly announce a ban. It seems to me that secrecy is only adopted when it suits those who stand to benefit from it. Great things coming from Gentoo "leadership" here. What will you do when mgorny starts targeting developers and pitching tantrums over them, too? Are we going to stratify developership further, too? It seems rather clear to me that a few individuals see themselves as the owners of this distro and bend it to suit their whims, using bureacracy to obscure their actions and motivations, segment the community, and block those less experienced. This is precisely why we have unmotivated developers and a bevy of unmaintained packages; nobody wants to contribute to a distro that treats its users (and developers) so poorly. A distro should never bend its entire social structure to protect the feelings of one surly developer (or his/her entourage), but naturally since every council member is friends with mgorny and comrel is afraid to take any action against him, they'll make exceptions to established procedures and ignore any complaints about the way he treats others. Software cannot fix wetware. Plenty of developers get to deal with mgorny's aggressive and insulting tone, yet nothing happens. Gee... I wonder why. Maybe because the upper parts of Gentoo are riddled with cronyism. "Rules for thee, not for me." It's clear to anyone with eyeballs that there is preferential treatment and inconsistent enforcement of rules in this community, and the people in a position to fix it, won't, because they in fact benefit from this. Unfortunately, GLEP 39 does not have a section on recalling or impeachment... This whole situation highlights why the Council has no business sticking its head into non-technical matters. It's clearly not up to the task. It's no surprise, since technical skill does not guarantee or even imply social skill. (or vice-versa) I'm tired of people beating around the bush and the facile attempts of tact: why do you give special treatment to certain members of this community? Would you have done anything different if it were me or some other developer who was proposing this change? It wouldn't have made it to the Council agenda if he didn't write it, period. Everyone else would've been told to suck it up and deal with it. And knowing how the Council is, in a few days we'll all get to deal with the churn of mailing lists to protect one person's ego. Sad. ~zlg -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer, Trustee, Treasurer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)
On 08/12/17 21:22, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > Independent of whether William now unsubscribed or not, he's now enjoying a > lengthy (1 year until review) vacation from all Gentoo communication channels. > This seems like a meaningless thing to post at this point. And you might want to consider your tone in the future. -- Alexander berna...@gentoo.org https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> >> Independent of whether William now unsubscribed or not, he's now enjoying a >> lengthy (1 year until review) vacation from all Gentoo communication >> channels. >> > > I don't understand two things about Gentoo: > > 1. style: How can anyone consider "enjoying a vacation" to be > appropriate wording in this context? That is at a minimum tasteless. > > 2. substance: Why would William be blocked from Gentoo for a year? > > How and/or where will these two points be clarified? > > > Thanks > > //Peter Second that. Such a long thread about behavior on both sides, and then this from somebody acting officially as comrel? No wonder you're getting abuse.
Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)
Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > Independent of whether William now unsubscribed or not, he's now enjoying a > lengthy (1 year until review) vacation from all Gentoo communication channels. > I don't understand two things about Gentoo: 1. style: How can anyone consider "enjoying a vacation" to be appropriate wording in this context? That is at a minimum tasteless. 2. substance: Why would William be blocked from Gentoo for a year? How and/or where will these two points be clarified? Thanks //Peter
That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)
Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017, 19:06:36 CET schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.: > > The day everyone wanted has come, after this message. I will > unsubscribe not to return. You all won in 2008, and again in 2017. > Though this time I will not be back. I tried more than most anyone else > would for a very long time. Gentoo wins I lose, I am fine with that. > > Please do not contact me off list in IRC or at all. I am done with the > Gentoo community! Independent of whether William now unsubscribed or not, he's now enjoying a lengthy (1 year until review) vacation from all Gentoo communication channels. -- Andreas K. Hüttel dilfri...@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
