On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 19:05 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
I think the idea is being taken the wrong way. Why would you think you
were second class?
Because this is where the development of the Gentoo Linux distribution
is discussed.
I'm not a Gentoo dev either, but I manage to make my
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now
would be the time.
Really, I don't like the idea...the list has been calm for some time
now, the discussions were lengthy sometimes but not aggressive.
V-Li
--
http://www.gentoo.org/
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 23:41 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
For far too long the mailing lists, IRC channels, and other media of
developer communication have been ridden with belligerent,
inconsiderate, and often-accusatory postings. However, instead of
removing the few who cause most (if not all)
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Chrissy Fullam wrote:
that post. An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev emails on
a timeout, pick a number of hours, and then the email if not moderated would
be released. (non-dev sends his email, time period expires and no one booted
it, so the email
Thanks for expressing your point of view that clearly. I stand with
you. Gentoo, for a while, has been taking itself *way* too seriously.
Perhaps that mentality is part of the inevitability of a project's
evolution through its own stages of life. Or perhaps, it's just human
nature to shriek in
Mike Doty wrote: [Thu Jul 12 2007, 03:24:32PM CDT]
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to
where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.
devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
themselves. in addition the gentoo-project
We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would
be the time.
It's like proctors, but worse. The only achievement will be another few devs
retiring.
Btw. I haven't seen any flamewars recently, have you? (probably except what
this thread will become)
--
Best
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
due to massive code duplication in netqmail, qmail-ldap, qmail-mysql,
mini-qmail and other 3-rd party applications for qmail i have started
to move functionality into a first qmail.eclass draft.
I already proposed moving the prime
Michael Hanselmann napsal(a):
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
due to massive code duplication in netqmail, qmail-ldap, qmail-mysql,
mini-qmail and other 3-rd party applications for qmail i have started
to move functionality into a first qmail.eclass draft.
And
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 03:11 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
Thanks for expressing your point of view that clearly. I stand with
you. Gentoo, for a while, has been taking itself *way* too seriously.
Perhaps that mentality is part of the inevitability of a project's
evolution through its own
Michael Hanselmann kirjoitti:
It seems like you aren't interested in communication with the
maintainer, otherwise you would've CC'ed me.
We are all required to subscribe to this mailing list... Should be easy
enough to spot the thread.
Regards,
Petteri
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 15:26 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If you want businesses to use Gentoo, you need to start offering things
that make Gentoo a better solution than other distributions. That,
first and foremost, means technical improvements, an area upon which
Gentoo is most definitely
-20070713.tar.bz2
prime.eclass
Description: Binary data
qmail.eclass
Description: Binary data
netqmail-1.05-r9.ebuild
Description: Binary data
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:14:00 -0400
William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I consider it growing up. Do we want businesses to run and base their
service/product offerings on Gentoo? If so we must take it seriously.
Otherwise we are just a hobby distro for the uber geeks.
If you want
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 15:26 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:14:00 -0400
William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What makes a developer only -dev list any different than developers
only having a voice on #gentoo-dev?
The former is where development discussion
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:53 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Michael Hanselmann napsal(a):
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
It seems like you aren't interested in communication with the
maintainer, otherwise you would've CC'ed me.
Erm? This was completely uncalled
Hi,
As a non-dev who recently joined this list, I think it
would be too bad for me if you made those policy
changes.
Basically, I neither have the skills nor the time
(yet) to even try to become a dev but I truly enjoy
contributing once in a while especially for packages
I use at work.
Since
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:08:38 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 15:26 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:14:00 -0400
William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What makes a developer only -dev list any different than
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:11:55 -0400
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've said for a while now (on this list, on my blogs) -- bad behaviour
happens on this list because we (as a community) allow it to happen.
If it's not encouraged and trolls are not fed, they die out. Part of
the
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:41:33 -0700
Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1). Create 1 (ONE) new list, which, for the purposes of this
discussion I will call it gentoo-dev-info (the name matters not). The
requirement for subscription for all devs would shift from gentoo-dev
to gentoo-dev-info.
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
Thanks for expressing your point of view that clearly. I stand with
you.
snip: More clear arguments
I'm just adding one more comment that I don't think I've seen yet in
this thread. (Although it's been a long thread, and I don't remember
all the points from all the
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:41:33 -0700
Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1). Create 1 (ONE) new list, which, for the purposes of this
discussion I will call it gentoo-dev-info (the name matters not). The
requirement for subscription for all devs would shift from
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:34 +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now
would be the time.
Really, I don't like the idea...the list has been calm for some time
now, the discussions were lengthy
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 23:41 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
Quite frankly, this (if passed) will be Gentoo's deathbed moment, and
this mail will be one of my last from an official Gentoo account.
Sure. Just like CoC. Or PMS. Or whatever the popular Gentoo is
dying topic was prior to that.
If you
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:12:27 -0700
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am so waiting for my term to end on the Council so I can procmail
this list to /dev/null and never have to deal with this sort of crap
again. Sure, I'll miss some important information, but the signal to
noise is so
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 03:11 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
What I find absolutely astounding is how much power Ciaran (we all know
the elephant in the room that motivates this newest council
announcement) wields over Gentoo.
*sigh*
Why is it that everyone always assumes everything the Council
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:14 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
What makes a developer only -dev list any different than developers only
having a voice on #gentoo-dev?
It is a change from what we have now and all change is bad, mm'kay.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:25:21 -0700
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, how about instead of these childish if this happens, I'm
taking my toys and going home attitudes, you instead try to determine
what you can do to improve a situation you see as bad for Gentoo with
one you
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:33:40 -0700
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're trying to solve the problem of people, *ALL* people, treating
each other like complete crap on our lists.
And three Council members come extremely high up the list of treating
people like crap. Or are [1], [2],
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:39 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I just read an article about this [1]. To summarize, in a volunteer
community, there needs to be more people enforcing the rules than
people breaking them. A small group of proctors doesn't work -- we need
everyone to join in to enforce
Since nobody else has sent this, I guess that I will do it.
The Trustees elections run in parallel with the Council elections, so
now is the time for nominations there, too.
Respond to the gentoo-nfp list and *not* to gentoo-dev, please.
As for anyone looking to nominate me, I'm pre-emptively
quoth the Chris Gianelloni:
Seriously, how about instead of these childish if this happens, I'm
taking my toys and going home attitudes,
As opposed to the childish I don't want to hear from a few outspoken users so
let's close up the list attitude?
you instead try to determine
what you
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:35 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:14 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
What makes a developer only -dev list any different than developers only
having a voice on #gentoo-dev?
It is a change from what we have now and all change is bad,
Vieri Di Paola schrieb:
I already contacted jokey (Markus) several months ago
via e-mail and we agreed that he would have setup
proxy maintenance for the shorewall ebuilds so that
I could contribute patches and learn from his
suggestions. We never got to do anything because we
simply stopped
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 12:04 -0600, darren kirby wrote:
quoth the Chris Gianelloni:
Seriously, how about instead of these childish if this happens, I'm
taking my toys and going home attitudes,
As opposed to the childish I don't want to hear from a few outspoken users
so
let's close
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:44:03 -0400
William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To future devs and any new contributing users, they will see -dev as a
ml for developer interaction. They will see -project as a place for
interaction with the community.
Wouldn't that be, uh, -user?
--
Ciaran
Another user here throwing in his two cents (Gentoo must be rich by
now). But I think that the mailing list absolutely needs changes. Like
it or not, after the recent negative press, including the embarassing
Daniel Robbins incident, this list has become a much higher-profile
public face of
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 19:51 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:44:03 -0400
William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To future devs and any new contributing users, they will see -dev as a
ml for developer interaction. They will see -project as a place for
Darren kirby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And what exactly is the bloody point if all of the contributions from
users are going to rot in some queue until they are no longer relevant?
I think everyone is overlooking the part included previously:
An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 13:53 -0500, Chris Scullard wrote:
Chris
Thanks for a level-headed response, Chris.
I think the biggest source of confusion is that few people went to
actually read the Council stuff from last meeting. Some points of
contention that nobody seems to be getting:
- Nobody
Okay, I thought of a potential modification that might make this a
little more friendly. Moderate all non-dev posts by default, but pass
their posts after a certain time period if nobody checks the queue, and
put a few people in charge of whitelisting positive contributors. If
whitelisted
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:37:42 -0700, Chris Gianelloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 13:53 -0500, Chris Scullard wrote:
Chris
Thanks for a level-headed response, Chris.
I think the biggest source of confusion is that few people went to
actually read the Council stuff from
As another invisible AT, theres a couple of points I want to make about
blanket blacklisting:
1. gentoo-dev has an outside image. The current, anyone-can-post,
projects the image that the developers are happy to receive outside
opinions that may be different to 'how things are done'. This is,
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:34:26 +0200
Michael Hanselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
due to massive code duplication in netqmail, qmail-ldap,
qmail-mysql, mini-qmail and other 3-rd party applications for qmail
i have started to move
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:22:47 -0400
William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:53 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Michael Hanselmann napsal(a):
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
It seems like you aren't interested in communication with
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:46:56PM -0400, Thomas Tuttle wrote:
Questions? Comments?
You're going to have a hell of a fun time to answer the question of
how a post is judged good or spam.
OG.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
I'm (obviously) not a dev but contribute some from time to time. Not much more
can be said than has already been stated, but since (I believe) this thread
started out asking for input, I just wanted to toss in a negative vote.
Essentially I don't see it solving any problem and stepping on the toes
Thomas Tuttle wrote:
The only people eligible to moderate are devs in the whitelisted state.
Questions? Comments?
I like it.
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:46:56 -0400
Thomas Tuttle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Questions? Comments?
How about NO MODERATION?
Or better yet, self-moderation? I will start doing that right now, and
stop feeding this thread. Yay! :)
Kind regards,
JeR
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:33 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
*sigh*
It seems impossible to have any sort of discussion with you (unless one
is in agreement with you, of course, and then one is clear headed)
without eliciting a *sigh* -- I don't think it's particularly the
healthiest way to have
Thomas Tuttle wrote:
Questions? Comments?
Thanks,
Thomas Tuttle
How about no moderation at all? If you are going to go through the mess
of deciding what is a good post or spam, why not just go all the way and
set up a global blacklist.
The blacklist could be set up to say only last a
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:13:53PM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
My thought is this: everyone should try and evaluate their own behaviour
on this list, and the method in which they treat others. If each of us
actually thought about the effects of our attitudes, this discussion
might well be
Marius Mauch wrote:
Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
(what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.
Yeah, but most of us are pretty well aware that we're submitting an ebuild
with Gentoo
Ned Ludd wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 02:17 +0200, Robert Buchholz wrote:
I have to second the voices that a lot of user mails are productive.
I did
not do any stats, but I feel that most mails to -dev are currently by
Gentoo
devs anyway, so it will not seriously reduce the amount of mail
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:39 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I just read an article about this [1]. To summarize, in a volunteer
community, there needs to be more people enforcing the rules than
people breaking them. A small group of proctors doesn't work -- we need
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:13:53PM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
My thought is this: everyone should try and evaluate their own behaviour
on this list, and the method in which they treat others. If each of us
actually thought about the effects of our attitudes, this
For many reasons, I'm choosing to take my leave from Gentoo at this
time. While this was in part brought on by the recent discussions about
the mailing lists, it's related to many other things as well. Mainly, I
don't have the motivation that I used to have to work on Gentoo. I feel
like my
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
I won't leave just because I disagree with some management decision that
Council makes. I might be stubborn and disenchanted for some time
(witness the many murmurs of discontent), but it's against my own best
interests to leave Gentoo. As it was put before, if you
Ken wrote:
I may just be a lowly Arch Tester, but I don't necessarily see why
individual dev's who are bothered by the noise can't just set up their
own killfiles and filters.
Do you have a solution to filter flamefests out of a ml? If you do,
please share it with the list.
signature.asc
60 matches
Mail list logo
