Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-06 Thread R0b0t1
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:44 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
 wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 09:51:23 +0100
> "Andreas K. Huettel"  wrote:
>
>> Am Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017, 00:40:11 CET schrieb William L.
>> Thomson Jr.: [...]
>>  [...]
>>  [...]
>>
>> Well, it's like listening to a broken record, which keeps repeating
>> the same snippet. At some point you stop listening, and at some point
>> you realize you should maybe remove it from the player.
>>
>

wltjr, I really do not think you are helping your case. If I were in
your position I think I would not back down either, but at some point
it is best to let history acknowledge that you are right. I started
reading your messages because I noticed Gentoo developers being
inconsistent, but not everyone will keep an open enough mind to do
that.

> Maybe you should go take more of my Firebird changes and put them in
> tree. Since you took over that package I mtainained and then merged in
> my changes from Linux UnderGround overlay that came from mine...
>
> Who do you think made the Firebird 3.x ebuild? I DID
> https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird
>
> See linux underground reporting issues with mine before adding it to
> their repository
> https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+firebird
>
> See the date after they got it from mine :)
> https://github.com/linuxunderground/gentoo.overlay/blob/master/dev-db/firebird/firebird-3.0.2.32703.0.ebuild
>
> Then Andreas adding it to tree... HILARIOUS
> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/e246873f43db77850c172263be72bc5153b23adb#diff-7dc5e9ed8a228dd8f564e17d66c5559e
>
> Also seems it took a few tries why? Not familiar with package?
> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird
>
> Same package, mgorny 51 comment QA leading to more issues because he
> does not use, have a clue about it, or bothered to actually test... Due
> to his approach and stance I assumed his changes  were correct. HUGE
> mistake on my behalf. Why in part mgorny does not like me
>

Though this thread might not be the best place, the character of
Gentoo developers seems to be relevant to the topic at hand. I agree
that there appear to be developers who have editorial control of
packages they do not understand. It also seems like they have ample
opportunity to confer with people who do understand the packages but
choose not to do so.

Respectfully,
 R0b0t1



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-06 Thread R0b0t1
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Rich Freeman  wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:22 AM, R0b0t1  wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rich Freeman  wrote:
>>>
>>> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
>>> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
>>> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?
>>>
>>
>> If you are going to allege misconduct you need to be prepared to prove it.
>>
>
> And this is done - in private.  Nobody is alleging misconduct in
> public, so I don't see why it needs to be proven in public.  Those
> being kicked out are generally told why and are given an opportunity
> to explain themselves, and often they're given an opportunity to
> improve.  Some have later posted publicly saying they don't know why
> they were booted.  With unmoderated lists we can't keep them from
> making false statements like this.  With our current policies we can't
> really contradict them specifically either.
>

You're mincing words: people are publicly alleging (we're talking
about it right now) private misconduct. Actions are now being proposed
(and have already begun to be acted out) based on this private
behavior. It is reasonable that if you expect anyone to believe you,
that you should prove the misconduct actually took place.

> I actually saw Debian take a slightly different tact in a recent
> situation.  It looks like they gave the accused the opportunity to
> decide whether the reasons for the action would be made public or not.
> In that case they chose to make it public, so there was a public
> statement by the project as to what was being done and why.  It
> probably wouldn't hurt to talk to a lawyer but such an approach has
> the advantage that it both preserves the privacy of the accused, while
> also defeating false statements.  If somebody alleges that they're
> innocent but did not give permission for the project to explain what
> actually happened, they can hardly be considered a voice for
> transparency and it would diminish their credibility.  On the other
> hand, if somebody chooses to quietly leave the community there would
> be no publicity around the event.  I'd think it would also help to
> defeat liability for defamation/etc since the statement could be
> presented to the accused for them to accept or reject, and if they
> accepted it for publication that would probably make it hard to argue
> in a court.
>

What really makes this hard to argue in court is the fact that in all
but one circuit libel, slander, and by extension defamation are all
impossible to claim if the statements were truthful. The first circuit
decision is very unpopular, and it seems like people do not expect it
to stand further testing as it was due to exceptional circumstances.

But really, the bigger issue is that lawyers are not magic sages that
can solve all of your problems. Most statements by lawyers are
opinions about how a justice might decide, and they do not know for
sure. In fact, much of practicing law is avoiding confrontation at all
cost, and many issues in the popular eye are almost entirely legal
speculation that has never seen a courtroom!

Consequently, the justification for the actions as has been given is
pathetic: if you actually had people's best interest in mind you would
be forthcoming with the evidence, because you truly believed the
problem is worth solving and believed you should convince other people
that it is worth solving. If you made someone's private actions public
(with consent of one party involved) it would be very hard to prove
that anything was done out of malice, which would be necessary, in the
US, to prove defamation.

Do not give up your freedom to act unless you are forced to.

The one legitimate complaint I could see being entertained is similar
to the ones that are now cropping up against universities and their
Title IX compliance courts: you have no legal training and are not
authorized to punish anyone, so the only thing you should do once you
are notified of misconduct is contact the police. In this sense the
policies you have now are "illegal" (in the vague, nebulous way that
your behavior makes it more likely for another party to have
standing).

> Aside from defamation as a potential issue, there is another reason to
> keep this stuff private.  Somebody might not be a good fit for a big
> community project, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other areas
> of their life where they can be successful.  Publicity over a bad
> event can harm their reputation in ways that go beyond the immediate
> needs of our community.  And there always is the chance that an error
> is being made in kicking them out.  Sure, that isn't a good thing, and
> I believe our processes already minimize this risk, but ultimately the
> harm in not being able to participate on a Gentoo mailing list is not
> a great one.  Why make that harm greater by 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-06 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 09:51:23 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel"  wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017, 00:40:11 CET schrieb William L.
> Thomson Jr.: [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
> 
> Well, it's like listening to a broken record, which keeps repeating
> the same snippet. At some point you stop listening, and at some point
> you realize you should maybe remove it from the player.
> 

Maybe you should go take more of my Firebird changes and put them in
tree. Since you took over that package I mtainained and then merged in
my changes from Linux UnderGround overlay that came from mine...

Who do you think made the Firebird 3.x ebuild? I DID
https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird

See linux underground reporting issues with mine before adding it to
their repository
https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+firebird

See the date after they got it from mine :)
https://github.com/linuxunderground/gentoo.overlay/blob/master/dev-db/firebird/firebird-3.0.2.32703.0.ebuild

Then Andreas adding it to tree... HILARIOUS
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/e246873f43db77850c172263be72bc5153b23adb#diff-7dc5e9ed8a228dd8f564e17d66c5559e

Also seems it took a few tries why? Not familiar with package?
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird

Same package, mgorny 51 comment QA leading to more issues because he
does not use, have a clue about it, or bothered to actually test... Due
to his approach and stance I assumed his changes  were correct. HUGE
mistake on my behalf. Why in part mgorny does not like me

All for a 1 line change to fix syslog-ng log file... 
https://bugs.gentoo.org/547442

mgorny going crazy on QA for a 1 line change Ridiculous!
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/101

Introducing new bugs that did not exist. GO QA
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/e246873f43db77850c172263be72bc5153b23adb#diff-7dc5e9ed8a228dd8f564e17d66c5559e

And work since on things mgorny missed...
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird

This generation is NO replacement for the previous They seem
completely incapable of doing some things...

There is more QA issues but that is just Firebird.

Why is this PR still open? Or Java 9 PRs? Anyone working on that? Or
just people like you complaining about those actually doing the work
your not... or maybe cannot...
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/1358
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/1721
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/6033

Andreas you are a funny guy...

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


pgpgPxbjlzmHL.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:22 AM, R0b0t1  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rich Freeman  wrote:
>>
>> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
>> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
>> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?
>>
>
> If you are going to allege misconduct you need to be prepared to prove it.
>

And this is done - in private.  Nobody is alleging misconduct in
public, so I don't see why it needs to be proven in public.  Those
being kicked out are generally told why and are given an opportunity
to explain themselves, and often they're given an opportunity to
improve.  Some have later posted publicly saying they don't know why
they were booted.  With unmoderated lists we can't keep them from
making false statements like this.  With our current policies we can't
really contradict them specifically either.

I actually saw Debian take a slightly different tact in a recent
situation.  It looks like they gave the accused the opportunity to
decide whether the reasons for the action would be made public or not.
In that case they chose to make it public, so there was a public
statement by the project as to what was being done and why.  It
probably wouldn't hurt to talk to a lawyer but such an approach has
the advantage that it both preserves the privacy of the accused, while
also defeating false statements.  If somebody alleges that they're
innocent but did not give permission for the project to explain what
actually happened, they can hardly be considered a voice for
transparency and it would diminish their credibility.  On the other
hand, if somebody chooses to quietly leave the community there would
be no publicity around the event.  I'd think it would also help to
defeat liability for defamation/etc since the statement could be
presented to the accused for them to accept or reject, and if they
accepted it for publication that would probably make it hard to argue
in a court.

Aside from defamation as a potential issue, there is another reason to
keep this stuff private.  Somebody might not be a good fit for a big
community project, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other areas
of their life where they can be successful.  Publicity over a bad
event can harm their reputation in ways that go beyond the immediate
needs of our community.  And there always is the chance that an error
is being made in kicking them out.  Sure, that isn't a good thing, and
I believe our processes already minimize this risk, but ultimately the
harm in not being able to participate on a Gentoo mailing list is not
a great one.  Why make that harm greater by publicizing things when
this is not essential to accomplish our goals?  The goal isn't to ruin
somebody's life - it is to allow other contributors to participate in
the community in reasonable peace.

-- 
Rich



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-06 Thread kuzetsa


On 12/05/2017 06:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand  wrote:
>>
>> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
>> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
>> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
>> information being presented, or they disagree with it.
>>
> I don't have any issue with discussion of facts, or even the offering
> of opinion, but the problem is that in these sorts of situations one
> side presents their side of the story and nobody is free to counter
> with the other side because of policy (and a reasonable policy at
> that).  And so the allegations just go unchallenged and are repeatedly
> posted.  What value does this add?  At best it misleads people into
> thinking that things like comrel actions are unfounded, and drives
> away potential contributors.

When a situation drives a way potential contributors,
a closer look should happen. A split might be the wrong
choice, but discussing the need for a remedy is good.

> If these were discussions about policy in the abstract and not in the
> specific then there wouldn't be as much difficulty (indeed, this is
> the form our disagreement is taking right now).  We can certainly have
> a free conversation about whether somebody who sexually harasses
> another developer ought to be booted or not.  The problem comes in
> when somebody has been the subject of a decision made based on their
> individual behavior - there is no way to have a reasonable public
> conversation about this.
>
> IMO discussions about individual comrel/etc decisions simply should
> not be considered on-topic for our lists.

Yes, but blocking of expression / communication is tricky:

Within a particular organization (in this case, one focusing on
FOSS/Libre software) demands that censorship be prevented at all
costs VS expectation that disruption won't be tolerated, nor will
general off-topic rudeness/disrespect, or even cruelty - some
expression can only exist in good faith when it can be reasonably
understood to further the overall objectives for the particular
organization (in our case, gentoo)

For a list specifically meant for development, more restrictions
are a reasonable starting point than elsewhere. There has to
be a line drawn somewhere, even if it's just "keep discussions
limited to matters associated with the current thread" (germane)

THIS discussion wouldn't make sense on a dev-util/cmake thread.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-06 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017, 00:40:11 CET schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 00:25:46 +0100
> 
> Kristian Fiskerstrand  wrote:
> > One of the primary issues recently is that you keep bringing up old
> > matters in a way that is a criticism of Gentoo overall, in various
> > channels. We've heard it already, and to keep bringing it up doesn't
> > add additional value to the discussion. So again, please reduce the
> > volume of such posts.
> 
> Most all still exist, plus new ones.

Well, it's like listening to a broken record, which keeps repeating the same 
snippet. At some point you stop listening, and at some point you realize you 
should maybe remove it from the player.

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfri...@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread R0b0t1
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶59 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1
> napisał:
>> As noted, there is one: analyzing the actions of those who are being
>> "attacked" to see why people are bothering to do it in the first
>> place. I sincerely doubt the offensive parties are doing what they are
>> doing without cause.
>
> Most of the affected developers are perfectly aware of the purpose of
> those attacks. If there was anything to be done to resolve the situation
> peacefully, we'd have done it long time ago. However, we can't and are
> not going to yield to people's unfounded demands based purely
> on the pressure inflicted by their misbehavior.
>

You are presupposing they are attacks. If they are public, and on
gentoo-dev, then why would you consider them attacks? Are you the only
person who acts with reason or purpose? How do you determine someone
else is not acting with those things?

> I believe this is as far as I can answer you. Going beyond that goes
> into public judgment of private issues which is unacceptable on this
> mailing list.
>

You have now made the issue public by asking that the information be
acted on. If you can not present it publicly, then do not ask anyone
to act on it, and do not hold people to decisions or outcomes made
using the information.

>> But no, the Gentoo developers are always above reproach.
>
> This remark is highly inappropriate.
>

Multiple times I have had polite requests for some explanation of
actions be ignored. In a few of them I can cite behavior that
contradicts itself. What conclusion is left to me save that certain
developers revel in being petty tyrants?

>> > I'm sorry but the purpose of this thread is not to convince you that
>> > the problems exist. If you haven't experienced them already, then it
>> > would be polite of you to either accept them as a fact, or do some
>> > research yourself.
>> >
>>
>> Your job is not to convince me, personally, but the future reader of
>> this list. If you have given up on doing so then you have admitted
>> that you do not want to be held accountable for your actions because
>> you do not feel you need to explain why you are doing what you are
>> doing.
>
> It is quite ironic that you worry about a 'future reader' needing to be
> convinced in this past post (presuming you have some infinite knowledge
> of what kind of details would a 'future reader' consider satisfying)
> and at the same time you clearly reject to search for any past posts
> on the topic.
>

Most people consider evidence and fact-based reasoning satisfying. You
can dispute this if you wish, but I'm not sure how far you will be
able to take it.

> Also, I should point out that you don't get to tell me what my job is.
> If you believe this thread should contain such data, please collect it
> yourself in your own time and include it in a reply. However, I should
> point out that you should respect all the rules we're talking about.
> I'd rather spend the time doing something that is of much greater
> importance of Gentoo users than some potential decision that will
> probably no longer be remembered in 12 months, except in snarky
> comments.
>

If you do not want to convince people you are right, eventually you
will have to accept a complete lack of credibility.

I do not have such information and now I have learned you are actively
keeping it from me and from everyone else who may be trying to form an
opinion on this matter.

>> > I understand that you might want to know things. However, it is
>> > generally impolite if someone 'comes late to the party' and starts
>> > shouting questions that the existing participants know answers to
>> > already. This is distorting to the conversation at hand.
>> >
>>
>> I am not shouting. I am politely, but pointedly, asking questions that
>> you ostensibly should already have the answer to. If you do not have
>> the answer, then I feel it is clear to future readers of the list that
>> you are making decisions for nonsensical reasons.
>
> I should point out that your personal attacks are also unacceptable.
> If you disagree with the proposal, then please focus on discussing facts
> and not trying to prove your opponent's incompetence.
>

I regret that you see it as a personal attack, but I am simply trying
to tell you how I expect most people will view the situation. You are
asserting you are right with no evidence. No one has any reason to
believe you.

>> > People's private issues are not topic of this mailing list. It is
>> > generally impolite and unprofessional to discuss them publicly. Please
>> > don't do that.
>> >
>>
>> If the messages are being posted to gentoo-dev then I don't see why
>> you consider the issue private. At least one party intends it to be
>> public, probably because it's not a personal attack and is related to
>> Gentoo.
>
> One side being unprofessional does not excuse the other from being so.
> It only causes very 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread R0b0t1
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rich Freeman  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell  wrote:
>>
>> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
>> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
>> incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
>> be dropped or rejected.
>
> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?
>

If you are going to allege misconduct you need to be prepared to prove it.

> Pretty much every organization I've ever been in would quietly show
> such a person the door unless the victim went public with the
> allegations.  Most normal people wouldn't want to be a part of an
> organization that didn't do such a thing.
>
> Apparently though in Gentoo some prefer that the victims of harassment
> have no recourse if the harassment doesn't happen on the gentoo-dev
> mailing list in public.
>
> If you think some cabal is running the show just run for Council.  If
> you win then you get the lucky job of trying to explain all this
> without disclosing the horrible things that some people do in private.
> Of course, lots of people won't believe you, since they profess to be
> innocent and the evidence can't be disclosed without bringing harm to
> a victim or creating the possibility of a defamation lawsuit.
>

Like in the thread about potential piracy issues with ebuilds, people
are being too cautious. For a defamation suit it would be necessary to
prove malicious intent, and then, only in the first circuit.

I'm still waiting for the notice that I can't use Gentoo to
manufacture weapons of mass destruction.

Respectfully,
 R0b0t1



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 00:25:46 +0100
Kristian Fiskerstrand  wrote:
>
> One of the primary issues recently is that you keep bringing up old
> matters in a way that is a criticism of Gentoo overall, in various
> channels. We've heard it already, and to keep bringing it up doesn't
> add additional value to the discussion. So again, please reduce the
> volume of such posts.

Most all still exist, plus new ones. Yet noting new is done to address.
Nothing changes for the good. Rather instead keep doubling done on the
old direction which keeps having a destructive impact. Maybe new
people, still learning the same lessons over and over. Old ones still
trying to force things to work the way they have never and will never.

And you get upset when someone is crying a fowl? If you saw something
being neglected and suffering. You would just stand by silently?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


pgp0TNiSymjQB.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:22:34 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr."  wrote:
>
> For the record and reading assumer's. All my actions were in public,
> basically on mailing lists starting with -nfp long ago. All action
> taken against me was in public visible on my developer bug. I have
> never communicated with ComRel former DevRel in private. Or had any
> action taken against me for anything I did in private. It was always
> public.

Sorry correction I have exchange emails, I think IRC short of
confirming via logs with ComRel/DevRel as part of action being taken
against. Any conduct being "punished" was in public. I have no problems
with any punishment interaction I had being made public. It would not be
any different than what is on mailing list or my bug.

Nothing I did privately caused the ball to start rolling. That was
all in public. I think the initial report against me was private

Again sorry I did not want to be lying.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


pgp4gZp8xudFN.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 12/06/2017 12:22 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Sorry and no more from me. I just feel given how I am portrayed,
> spoken of, action taken against, etc. I must clarify some things for the
> public record. Which even despite all my actions being in public.
> People still assume because research and thinking for yourself takes
> time. Time I do not expect anyone to expend.

One of the primary issues recently is that you keep bringing up old
matters in a way that is a criticism of Gentoo overall, in various
channels. We've heard it already, and to keep bringing it up doesn't add
additional value to the discussion. So again, please reduce the volume
of such posts.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:02:01 -0500
Rich Freeman  wrote:
>
> The problem is that with current policies if somebody in Comrel/etc
> had evidence to the contrary they would not be able to refute such a
> denial.  My example wasn't of wltjr specifically (at least not to my
> knowledge), but it just goes to the point of why having these sorts of
> things hashed out on the mailing lists on the first place. 

For the record and reading assumer's. All my actions were in public,
basically on mailing lists starting with -nfp long ago. All action taken
against me was in public visible on my developer bug. I have never
communicated with ComRel former DevRel in private. Or had any action
taken against me for anything I did in private. It was always public.

Any private information regarding me from 08 till today was generated
within Gentoo and does not involve me. If any exists. With the
exception of -core back in the day. Which again is a list, visible to
all devs then.

Sorry and no more from me. I just feel given how I am portrayed,
spoken of, action taken against, etc. I must clarify some things for the
public record. Which even despite all my actions being in public.
People still assume because research and thinking for yourself takes
time. Time I do not expect anyone to expend.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


pgpZwG3wiX646.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand  wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
>>> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
>>> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
>>> tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?
>>
>> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
>> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
>> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
>> information being presented, or they disagree with it.
>>
>
> This whole email thread is actually one of the examples of where split
> lists is a bad thing, the original message was cross-posted between
> gentoo-project and gentoo-dev with a reply-to for gentoo-dev. Resulting
> in split discussions across the lists. The overall discussion should've
> been in -project to begin with.
>

Certainly, though if our lists actually were moderated it would be a
non-issue because all the replies to the off-topic list would have
been deleted.

Mailing lists aren't great for moderation in general though, because
it is impossible to delete a post after it has been distributed.  In a
forum something like this would be easily solved by just moving the
thread to the right place, deleting posts after the fact, and so on.

-- 
Rich



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand  wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
>> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
>> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
>> tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?
>
> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
> information being presented, or they disagree with it.
>

We have had cases where people who were the subject of comrel
complaints about harassment go on to just post endlessly on mailing
lists, sometimes professing that they have no reason why comrel booted
them (despite evidence to the contrary existing).  It just leads to a
one-sided discussion because we don't defend Gentoo's reputation in
these cases so instead our lists just get used to smear us.

I don't have any issue with discussion of facts, or even the offering
of opinion, but the problem is that in these sorts of situations one
side presents their side of the story and nobody is free to counter
with the other side because of policy (and a reasonable policy at
that).  And so the allegations just go unchallenged and are repeatedly
posted.  What value does this add?  At best it misleads people into
thinking that things like comrel actions are unfounded, and drives
away potential contributors.

If these were discussions about policy in the abstract and not in the
specific then there wouldn't be as much difficulty (indeed, this is
the form our disagreement is taking right now).  We can certainly have
a free conversation about whether somebody who sexually harasses
another developer ought to be booted or not.  The problem comes in
when somebody has been the subject of a decision made based on their
individual behavior - there is no way to have a reasonable public
conversation about this.

IMO discussions about individual comrel/etc decisions simply should
not be considered on-topic for our lists.


-- 
Rich



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 12/05/2017 11:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
>> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
>> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
>> tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?
> 
> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
> information being presented, or they disagree with it.
> 

This whole email thread is actually one of the examples of where split
lists is a bad thing, the original message was cross-posted between
gentoo-project and gentoo-dev with a reply-to for gentoo-dev. Resulting
in split discussions across the lists. The overall discussion should've
been in -project to begin with.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
 wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:25:21 -0500
> Rich Freeman  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand
>>  wrote:
>> > On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> >
>> >> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses
>> >> other members of the community in private after being told to
>> >> stop, and then acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing
>> >> lists?
>> >
>> > This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
>> > would certainly be a matter for comrel.
>> >
>> What do you do when they keep posting manifestos or whatever on the
>> lists every few months, or generally stirring up the community about
>> how unjustly they're being treated?  When the appeal is to popular
>> opinion, instead of the defined process for handling these appeals?
>
> For readers who may assume. Along the lines of me being kicked. I have
> never ever in my life ever done anything along those lines, nor was
> kicked. What ever Rich is referring to is another person, not me
>

The problem is that with current policies if somebody in Comrel/etc
had evidence to the contrary they would not be able to refute such a
denial.  My example wasn't of wltjr specifically (at least not to my
knowledge), but it just goes to the point of why having these sorts of
things hashed out on the mailing lists on the first place.  At best it
results in damage to reputations and attention drawn to victims (and
perpetrators) of such activities.  At worst it can lead to
escalation/lawsuits/etc.


-- 
Rich



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:25:21 -0500
Rich Freeman  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand
>  wrote:
> > On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:  
> >
> >> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses
> >> other members of the community in private after being told to
> >> stop, and then acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing
> >> lists?  
> >
> > This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
> > would certainly be a matter for comrel.
> >  
> What do you do when they keep posting manifestos or whatever on the
> lists every few months, or generally stirring up the community about
> how unjustly they're being treated?  When the appeal is to popular
> opinion, instead of the defined process for handling these appeals?

For readers who may assume. Along the lines of me being kicked. I have
never ever in my life ever done anything along those lines, nor was
kicked. What ever Rich is referring to is another person, not me

I may stir pot, annoy, write backwards, etc. I do not use profanity. I
do not harass people. My actions are all in public. I am not a fan of
private PM. I hated it as a Trustee!

In fact private harassment is why I stepped down as Trustee
Me receiving harassment from members of DevRel
None sexual, still was harassment none the less

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


pgp5436cBD0EY.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
> tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?

We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
"spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
information being presented, or they disagree with it.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand  wrote:
>
> The difference would be that you, in your first example, can demonstrate
> some actual abuse. In the latter case you're talking about differences
> of opinions of how things are run, which quickly turns into censorship.
>

I don't see how any of this can "turn into censorship" - it IS
censorship from the outset.  That is what moderation is.  If the topic
of the list isn't for ranting about how horrible Gentoo is and why
nobody should bother to join the community, then such a post is
off-topic.  We either allow it (in which case we'll continue to have
lots of infighting and a generally toxic environment), or we don't (in
which case we ARE censoring the lists).

Obviously things work more nicely when people censor themselves, but
not everybody does.

Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?

-- 
Rich



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 12/05/2017 11:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand  wrote:
>> On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell  wrote:
 I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
 developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
 incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
 be dropped or rejected.
>>> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
>>> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
>>> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?
>>
>> This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
>> would certainly be a matter for comrel.
>>
> 
> What do you do when they keep posting manifestos or whatever on the
> lists every few months, or generally stirring up the community about
> how unjustly they're being treated?  When the appeal is to popular
> opinion, instead of the defined process for handling these appeals?
> 
> Ultimately it isn't that hard to convince newcomers that Gentoo is
> full of backstabbing when you let people allege that and have the last
> word whenever it fancies them to do so.
> 
> The point of prior restraint is so that our mailing lists don't turn
> into the most negative PR imaginable.
> 

The difference would be that you, in your first example, can demonstrate
some actual abuse. In the latter case you're talking about differences
of opinions of how things are run, which quickly turns into censorship.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand  wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell  wrote:
>>> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
>>> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
>>> incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
>>> be dropped or rejected.
>> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
>> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
>> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?
>
> This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
> would certainly be a matter for comrel.
>

What do you do when they keep posting manifestos or whatever on the
lists every few months, or generally stirring up the community about
how unjustly they're being treated?  When the appeal is to popular
opinion, instead of the defined process for handling these appeals?

Ultimately it isn't that hard to convince newcomers that Gentoo is
full of backstabbing when you let people allege that and have the last
word whenever it fancies them to do so.

The point of prior restraint is so that our mailing lists don't turn
into the most negative PR imaginable.

-- 
Rich



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell  wrote:
>> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
>> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
>> incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
>> be dropped or rejected.
> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?

This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
would certainly be a matter for comrel.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell  wrote:
>
> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
> incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
> be dropped or rejected.

And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?

Pretty much every organization I've ever been in would quietly show
such a person the door unless the victim went public with the
allegations.  Most normal people wouldn't want to be a part of an
organization that didn't do such a thing.

Apparently though in Gentoo some prefer that the victims of harassment
have no recourse if the harassment doesn't happen on the gentoo-dev
mailing list in public.

If you think some cabal is running the show just run for Council.  If
you win then you get the lucky job of trying to explain all this
without disclosing the horrible things that some people do in private.
Of course, lots of people won't believe you, since they profess to be
innocent and the evidence can't be disclosed without bringing harm to
a victim or creating the possibility of a defamation lawsuit.

Nobody should assume that my example fits any particular person, but
it is certainly one I've heard about in Gentoo's history.  These
things do happen when you have a large enough community.

There are certainly people around here that annoy lots of devs, and
have for years, and yet they're not the ones being banned.  Heck, I
know I annoy plenty of people with lengthy posts, but the stuff that
actually gets people driven out goes way beyond annoyance.

And honestly, in an ideal world we wouldn't be moderating posts based
on who posted them, but simply based on their content.  Posts about
Gentoo development on gentoo-dev can go through, posts that aren't
about such things don't.  It is usually for the sake of manpower that
you whitelist/greylist/blacklist individuals.

-- 
Rich



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Aaron W. Swenson
On 2017-12-03 00:18, Michał Górny wrote:
> …snip…

I understand, and sympathize with, the motivation to create another list
and restrict gentoo-dev. And, I agree with most of the points,
especially given some of the more recent events.

I still vote no.

gentoo-dev is supposed to be for open discussions on the development of
Gentoo. I’ve come to expect to have some not so pleasant or diplomatic
replies.

Yes, there are a couple individuals that are being awfully noisy, but
the vaster majority are not. By splitting the list, we’re just moving that
noise elsewhere so we can ignore them.

This proposal avoids rather than addresses the problem.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Daniel Campbell
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:59:40AM +, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Daniel Campbell wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:18:04AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > I'd like to establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > > 
> > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > I don't think this plan will have the effect you're going for,
> 
> I agree, and I'll double down on my previous comment on this proposal:
> 
> I consider the proposal to be the wrong solution.
> 
> 
> > but let's be honest here: the "RFC" is just a formality; the decision's
> > already been made.
> 
> I hope that a mere proposal doesn't automatically mean policy change.
> 

If proposals come from a select couple of people, there are high odds
that it's been discussed privately and the relevant people've been
convinced or otherwise pushed to implement the change. By the time it
hits the list, any cricitism is met with "too bad, we're doing it
anyway". I'm not sure how new you are to Gentoo, but it's been this way
since at least 2012.

> 
> > If the "real leaders" of Gentoo want to divide and fragment the
> > community, it's their prerogative.
> 
> When there is a request for comments, there should also be comments. :)
> 
> Far too many fall into the simple trap that is tribalism, and I'd like
> to encourage everyone on this list to not be that kind of person,
> because there really is no "us and them", there is only "us".
> 

I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
be dropped or rejected. It will likely be a silent rejection, so the
fallout is minimal. The plan itself is a manifestation of tribalism.
The "us" is a select group of people who've been blessed by mgorny and
friends.  Everyone else is deemed a "do nothing" or some other insult,
regardless of their history or efforts with the distribution. Yes,
talking about that is ugly, but it's the truth. I've been on the
receiving end of it multiple times and have been witness to it many
others. It shows up in just about every corner of Gentoo. Creating a
technical schism won't fix it.

> 
> > As we tell users who do something they're not supposed to: You get
> > to keep the pieces.
> 
> Well, let's see what happens, now that both developers and
> non-developers have clearly spoken out *against* this proposal.
> 

I'm not holding my breath on any positive change, but we'll see. It's
not like we have a choice in the matter. I guess we'll have to subscribe
to yet another mailing list if we want to stay informed. Maybe in a
year's time, we'll have gentoo-dev-expert as well, so the Chosen Ones
don't have to deal with developers they don't like.

This is my last mail in this thread. I've made my points and know they
will fall on deaf ears. You're not wrong in your approach; I don't share
that faith, is all. So I hope you don't interpret this as me yelling at
you.

> 
> Kind regards
> 
> //Peter
> 

-- 
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: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Nils Freydank
Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2017, 18:02:21 CET schrieb Michał Górny:
> W dniu pon, 04.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶18 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan
> 
> Ochtman napisał:
> > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> [...]
> 
> I'm all for it, as long as someone is actually going to do the necessary
> work within the next, say, 4 weeks. I'd really like to avoid once again
> having no resolution whatsoever just to wait for never-to-come upgrade.
> 
> I should point out that this includes:
> [...]
> 2. Establishing a clear policy on how moderation should be performed.
> Without a clear policy, the effects could be far worse than status quo.
I’m working on a draft for a ruleset and will send it to the list (as a new 
thread). However, this may take until the end of this week.

> 3. Establishing a good and trusted moderators team. Normally I'd say
> ComRel could do that but given their inability to react within the last
> year...
> 
> So, anyone volunteering to do the work?
I would do it, but IMHO it’s inappropriate if I would do that as a non-dev/
normal user.

-- 
GPG fingerprint: '766B 8122 1342 6912 3401 492A 8B54 D7A3 FF3C DB17'
Holgersson

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


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-05 Thread Peter Stuge
Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:18:04AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > I'd like to establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> 
> I don't think this plan will have the effect you're going for,

I agree, and I'll double down on my previous comment on this proposal:

I consider the proposal to be the wrong solution.


> but let's be honest here: the "RFC" is just a formality; the decision's
> already been made.

I hope that a mere proposal doesn't automatically mean policy change.


> If the "real leaders" of Gentoo want to divide and fragment the
> community, it's their prerogative.

When there is a request for comments, there should also be comments. :)

Far too many fall into the simple trap that is tribalism, and I'd like
to encourage everyone on this list to not be that kind of person,
because there really is no "us and them", there is only "us".


> As we tell users who do something they're not supposed to: You get
> to keep the pieces.

Well, let's see what happens, now that both developers and
non-developers have clearly spoken out *against* this proposal.


Kind regards

//Peter



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-04 Thread kuzetsa

On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> be lured into discussing with them.
>
> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
>

Can confirm:

This was the first gentoo-dev thread I've ever posted to.

I was frustrated in this thread mainly because I wasn't
100% certain if the persons who were making this thread -
let's say "difficult" - I wasn't sure if they were
developers/contributors, or just people who wandered into
the list. archive readers might get confused too.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-04 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:29:26 +0100
Vincent-Xavier JUMEL  wrote:
> 
> Please do rembember that you can't solve all earth problems, not even 
> all Gentoo problems :)

Technology is no means to resolve social issues. Our use of technology
is bringing about entirely new unique social issues. Technology creates
more social issues than it solves.

People all over the world will never get along. That does not mean they
should not have a place where they all come together for the benefit of
all. That is where magic happens!


-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


pgpi0pu51nRtc.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-04 Thread Daniel Campbell
On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:18:04AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
> 
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> 
> 
> Problems
> 
> 
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> 
> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> 
> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> 
> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> 
> 
> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> activity.
> 
> For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
> 
> 
> Proposal
> 
> 
> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> 
> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> 
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> 
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> 
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> 
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> 
> 
> Rationale
> =
> 
> I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> options to no avail.
> 
> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> 
> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> 
> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> 
> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> 
> 
> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> really solve the problem because:
> 
> I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> to themselves.
> 
> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> be lured into discussing with them.
> 
> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
> 
> 
> Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of
> the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we
> can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software
> and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to
> change that.
> 
> Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good
> moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without
> causing huge delays, moderation has a number of 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-04 Thread Vincent-Xavier JUMEL

Le 2017-12-03 22:31, Michał Górny a écrit :

Multiple people have tried, and as explained in the long rationale we
haven't had any success. If you have a constructive ideas how to solve
the problem otherwise, we're open to hear them. That's the whole 
purpose

of this thread.


Once or twice in 10 years, in a French association devoted to Free 
Software Advocacy such troll arise.


Since closing list and recreating new one isn't a solution, someone has 
to step in :

1/ First warn firmly that inacceptable behavior is not tolerated
2/ after first warn, expell the offenser from the list.

This extreme solution is taken by asociation representative, after 
trying to settle a resolution.


Even if the nay-sayer have made some valuable contribution, you could 
set him out. If he come back, just unravel him and his method so every 
one will know him and apply a Usenet Death Penalty



Truth is, people change in toxic environments. I can't solve all
the problems immediately but I believe this is the first step towards
improving things, also in myself and other developers having problems.


Please do rembember that you can't solve all earth problems, not even 
all Gentoo problems :)


--
Vincent-Xavier JUMEL GPG Id: 0x14ABB3F2 http://thetys-retz.net

Rejoignez les 5334 adhérents de l'April http://www.april.org/adherer
Parinux, logiciel libre à Paris : http://www.parinux.org



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-04 Thread Róbert Čerňanský
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:34:49 -0500
kuzetsa  wrote:

> On 12/04/2017 01:11 PM, Christopher Head wrote:
> > On December 3, 2017 1:35:23 PM PST, "Michał Górny"
> >  wrote:  
> >> The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through
> >> Bugzilla. This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the
> >> specific issue without unnecessary distraction for other
> >> developers who are not interested in the specific topic.  
> > While this is true for bugs, is it true for everything else
> > as well? Bugzilla seems to me to be a more reactive, rather
> > than proactive, tool when dealing with changes of behaviour
> > in particular packages, eclasses, etc.  
> Reading the gentoo-dev list will still be an option. If there's
> a bug already open for a planned change (as often happens when
> blockers are expected, etc.), filing a bug and marking as a
> blocker will be an option. If the behavior is known in
> advance that it will break your configuration or workflow,
> etc. I think it's still fine to file a bug about the oversight
> before implemented occurs. If not appropriate to file as a bug,
> there are project aliases you can mail concerns to.

There are also matters like this one where Bugzilla is not very
appropriate medium, IMO.  For example instead of replaying to list I
would file a new bug with title "Users maybe will not be allowed to post
to gentoo-dev" and state my opinion there?

Regards,
Robert


-- 
Róbert Čerňanský
E-mail: ope...@tightmail.com
Jabber: h...@jabber.sk



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-04 Thread kuzetsa
On 12/04/2017 01:11 PM, Christopher Head wrote:
> On December 3, 2017 1:35:23 PM PST, "Michał Górny"  wrote:
>> The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through Bugzilla.
>> This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the specific issue
>> without unnecessary distraction for other developers who are not
>> interested in the specific topic.
> While this is true for bugs, is it true for everything else
> as well? Bugzilla seems to me to be a more reactive, rather
> than proactive, tool when dealing with changes of behaviour
> in particular packages, eclasses, etc.
--snip--
>  Bugzilla isn’t so easily discoverable, given the number of
> bugs filed; gentoo-dev has the nice property that the
> maintainers self-select which proposed changes are important
> enough to announce, which Bugzilla doesn’t do. So if I wanted
> to be notified of all important changes to core system
> packages on Bugzilla, today, I would have to (1) choose the
> set of packages to follow myself, probably missing a few in
> the process, and (2) filter out the unimportant bug mail
> which currently never reaches this list at all.

Reading the gentoo-dev list will still be an option. If there's
a bug already open for a planned change (as often happens when
blockers are expected, etc.), filing a bug and marking as a
blocker will be an option. If the behavior is known in
advance that it will break your configuration or workflow,
etc. I think it's still fine to file a bug about the oversight
before implemented occurs. If not appropriate to file as a bug,
there are project aliases you can mail concerns to.
{reference below}

On the other hand, if it's not obvious there will be breakage,
then posting to the gentoo-dev list can't prevent it. Also,
the original proposal did state that non-devs who contribute
can request post permission, as needed.
{reference below}

On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-04 Thread Christopher Head
On December 3, 2017 1:35:23 PM PST, "Michał Górny"  wrote:
>
>The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through Bugzilla.
>This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the specific issue
>without unnecessary distraction for other developers who are not
>interested in the specific topic.

While this is true for bugs, is it true for everything else as well? Bugzilla 
seems to me to be a more reactive, rather than proactive, tool when dealing 
with changes of behaviour in particular packages, eclasses, etc.. That is to 
say, if I object to the current behaviour in a particular eclass, in Portage, 
or in some core package with high impact, I can file a bug. If someone is 
considering changing behaviour and I want to voice my opinion on that proposal, 
Bugzilla is less helpful. Case 1, the developer does it without 
non-dev-community input and I am left with the only choice being to object 
after the fact, when my system is already broken. Case 2, the developer files a 
bug describing the change and then implements it; in this case, we suffer from 
the problem that Bugzilla isn’t so easily discoverable, given the number of 
bugs filed; gentoo-dev has the nice property that the maintainers self-select 
which proposed changes are important enough to announce, which Bugzilla doesn’t 
do. So if I wanted to be notified of all important changes to core system 
packages on Bugzilla, today, I would have to (1) choose the set of packages to 
follow myself, probably missing a few in the process, and (2) filter out the 
unimportant bug mail which currently never reaches this list at all.

-- 
Christopher Head

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-04 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶59 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1
napisał:
> As noted, there is one: analyzing the actions of those who are being
> "attacked" to see why people are bothering to do it in the first
> place. I sincerely doubt the offensive parties are doing what they are
> doing without cause.

Most of the affected developers are perfectly aware of the purpose of
those attacks. If there was anything to be done to resolve the situation
peacefully, we'd have done it long time ago. However, we can't and are
not going to yield to people's unfounded demands based purely
on the pressure inflicted by their misbehavior.

I believe this is as far as I can answer you. Going beyond that goes
into public judgment of private issues which is unacceptable on this
mailing list.

> But no, the Gentoo developers are always above reproach.

This remark is highly inappropriate.

> > I'm sorry but the purpose of this thread is not to convince you that
> > the problems exist. If you haven't experienced them already, then it
> > would be polite of you to either accept them as a fact, or do some
> > research yourself.
> > 
> 
> Your job is not to convince me, personally, but the future reader of
> this list. If you have given up on doing so then you have admitted
> that you do not want to be held accountable for your actions because
> you do not feel you need to explain why you are doing what you are
> doing.

It is quite ironic that you worry about a 'future reader' needing to be
convinced in this past post (presuming you have some infinite knowledge
of what kind of details would a 'future reader' consider satisfying)
and at the same time you clearly reject to search for any past posts
on the topic.

Also, I should point out that you don't get to tell me what my job is.
If you believe this thread should contain such data, please collect it
yourself in your own time and include it in a reply. However, I should
point out that you should respect all the rules we're talking about.
I'd rather spend the time doing something that is of much greater
importance of Gentoo users than some potential decision that will
probably no longer be remembered in 12 months, except in snarky
comments.

> > I understand that you might want to know things. However, it is
> > generally impolite if someone 'comes late to the party' and starts
> > shouting questions that the existing participants know answers to
> > already. This is distorting to the conversation at hand.
> > 
> 
> I am not shouting. I am politely, but pointedly, asking questions that
> you ostensibly should already have the answer to. If you do not have
> the answer, then I feel it is clear to future readers of the list that
> you are making decisions for nonsensical reasons.

I should point out that your personal attacks are also unacceptable.
If you disagree with the proposal, then please focus on discussing facts
and not trying to prove your opponent's incompetence.

> > People's private issues are not topic of this mailing list. It is
> > generally impolite and unprofessional to discuss them publicly. Please
> > don't do that.
> > 
> 
> If the messages are being posted to gentoo-dev then I don't see why
> you consider the issue private. At least one party intends it to be
> public, probably because it's not a personal attack and is related to
> Gentoo.

One side being unprofessional does not excuse the other from being so.
It only causes very unfair 'community judgment' where community judges
based on abusive facts of one side where the other side is unable to
provide counter-arguments without violating the privacy rules.

Please consider that you have exhausted all the time I had available for
you. Please do not expect any further answers from me, and give others
a fair chance of getting developers' attention.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny




Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-04 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu pon, 04.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶18 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan
Ochtman napisał:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> 
> > > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it
> > 
> > be
> > > better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators
> > 
> > who
> > > move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> > > the specific posts if necessary?
> > 
> > I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj
> > has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did,
> > moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low-
> > traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well.
> > 
> 
> Maybe we should move to a more modern list manager? I'm pretty sure mailman
> can do this kind of stuff trivially. It feels bad if we have to institute
> suboptimal processes due to crappy tooling, if better alternatives are
> readily available.
> 

I'm all for it, as long as someone is actually going to do the necessary
work within the next, say, 4 weeks. I'd really like to avoid once again
having no resolution whatsoever just to wait for never-to-come upgrade.

I should point out that this includes:

1. Switch to another mailing list software without breaking stuff. This
needs someone from Infra really willing and being able to do it.

2. Establishing a clear policy on how moderation should be performed.
Without a clear policy, the effects could be far worse than status quo.

3. Establishing a good and trusted moderators team. Normally I'd say
ComRel could do that but given their inability to react within the last
year...

So, anyone volunteering to do the work?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny




Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-04 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:

> > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it
> be
> > better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators
> who
> > move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> > the specific posts if necessary?
>
> I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj
> has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did,
> moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low-
> traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well.
>

Maybe we should move to a more modern list manager? I'm pretty sure mailman
can do this kind of stuff trivially. It feels bad if we have to institute
suboptimal processes due to crappy tooling, if better alternatives are
readily available.

Regards,

Dirkjan


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread R0b0t1
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 8:56 PM, kuzetsa  wrote:
>
> Yes please. I don't want to see gentoo end because of ... rudeness.
>

Be careful, it is easy to disguise rudeness as tact.



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread R0b0t1
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> W dniu sob, 02.12.2017 o godzinie 19∶33 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1
> napisał:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In every mailing list conversation, there are at least three people:
>> the two conversing, and the future reader. I point this out as I think
>> it important that everyone realize that not all posts are written for
>> those immediately participating in the conversation.
>>
>> Some time ago I was offered some equipment due to my history of
>> open-source contributions to a variety of projects. I asked the donor
>> to forward it (or money) to the Gentoo foundation, but they declined,
>> citing a general distaste for the management of software projects in
>> general and specific issues they believed existed within Gentoo.
>
> I'm not sure if this is relevant to the topic at hand. There are many
> issues within Gentoo. I'm trying to address one of them.
>

The point is that actions of [some of] the developers are affecting
the public perception of Gentoo to the point at least one person
hasn't wanted to donate.

>> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:
>> > Hello, everyone.
>> >
>> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
>> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
>> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
>> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>> >
>>
>> If you have in fact discussed this off list with people who agree, I
>> think it is important that you invite them to comment. Not only will
>> it show support for what you have detailed, it will allow them to
>> explain the problems they have in greater detail, so that perhaps a
>> solution that does not involve restricting list access could be found.
>
> This sentence merely focuses on 'don't shoot the messenger' part which
> will happen anyway. Those people won't come here to '+1' the proposal
> because this mailing list is not supposed to be about mail popularity
> contests.
>

No, but policy changes are. They should be critically analyzed. I'm
not going to pretend like I can vote, but I can try to make you feel
bad about not answering my questions.

> Also because they don't want to be targeted by people misbehaving here.
> In fact, a number of them already pinged me today privately showing
> support, and some of them told me exactly that -- that they don't want
> to become a target of aggression. A few participants of this mailing
> list have shown harassment towards people that stood up to them --
> including constant insults on various public and private channels.
>

Again, no one has any right to not be offended. For something of this
nature I feel public support should be necessary.

>>
>> It may be that I am misunderstanding your language, but what you have
>> presented does not leave many things open for discussion. It seems
>> like what you have presented is to be either accepted or rejected as
>> is. Seeing as my opinion does not matter, it further seems like it
>> will simply be accepted as is.
>
> I simply don't believe that after so many iterations there's any more
> option that hasn't been tried or rejected already.
>

As noted, there is one: analyzing the actions of those who are being
"attacked" to see why people are bothering to do it in the first
place. I sincerely doubt the offensive parties are doing what they are
doing without cause.

But no, the Gentoo developers are always above reproach.

>> >
>> > Problems
>> > 
>> >
>> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
>> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
>> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
>> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>> >
>> > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
>> > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
>> > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
>> > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>> >
>>
>> No one has any right to not be offended. If Gentoo developers are
>> receiving criticism for their behavior, then perhaps it would be best
>> that they critically analyze their actions and the effect that they
>> have on other people.
>>
>> As far as I am aware most developers never get harassed and go quietly
>> on about their business. I have even asked some questions similar to
>> the questions I have asked on this list that people have felt were
>> adversarial. However, these developers didn't seem to mind my
>> questions and spent 5 minutes or so of their time on a response.
>>
>> > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
>> > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
>> > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
>> > in search of data relevant to 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread kuzetsa

On 12/03/2017 08:19 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> this 18 min talk by Donnie Berkholz from 2012, about Gentoo actually: 

Someone in private linked that video to me today. Yeah :(

> Do not tolerate bad behavior by anyone!
--snip--
> It is important to take action which clearly rejects
> unacceptable behavior. Otherwise any behavior is per definition
> implicitly accepted, which attracts assholes.

You're not wrong. I've seen FOSS/Libre communities (and non-compsci
peer-directed projects) fall apart when "radical free speech"
went unchecked. The only people who stayed were even more effective
when it came to what seemed like intentionally driving off anyone
who dissented / spoke out against their disrespectful behaviors.

> Coming back to the concrete proposal, I think a better course of
> action is to demonstrate strong leadership, by speaking out in force
> against bad behavior, every time.
>
> In order to have something to lean on, it can be super helpful to
> have a code-of-conduct in place, and was already mentioned.
--snip--
> I urge either ComRel or other leadership to take as forceful action
> as is neccessary against bad behavior, to uphold a healthy
> environment.
>
--snip--
> Please do not relent. It is not fair to yourself or your colleagues.
>
>
> Thank you and keep up the excellent effort everyone
>
> //Peter

Yes please. I don't want to see gentoo end because of ... rudeness.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Peter Stuge
Hi Michał,

Michał Górny wrote:
> major problems with some of the posters for more than a year.

Please believe me when I say that I know what this feels like.

I want to applaud and thank everyone who has been tackling/discussing
this issue in private, and I especially want to applaud taking action!

I however disagree with the proposal to move the problem.

I would like to encourage everyone, but in particular devs, to watch
this 18 min talk by Donnie Berkholz from 2012, about Gentoo actually:

Assholes are Ruining Your Project
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZSli7QW4rg

If you don't want to, then the most important take-away as stated by
Donnie and supported by my own experience having "my" project ruined
is:

Do not tolerate bad behavior by anyone!


> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem.

While reading your message, I kept thinking to myself: "isn't this
the very purpose of ComRel?"

I only have a non-dev understanding of ComRel, but I agree with Matt that
inaction in this situation is a failure of ComRel, and that should not be
to the detriment of any constructive contributor on gentoo-dev.


> A. Bans can be trivially evaded
> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion

Mh, so-so. It is important to take action which clearly rejects
unacceptable behavior. Otherwise any behavior is per definition
implicitly accepted, which attracts assholes.


> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse

This should *also* not be accepted. Equal standards for what is
acceptable and what is not must apply to everyone.

It could be argued that different people deserve different sanctions.
I would agree with that only as far as there is a mentoring process in
place, requiring a third party to work on eliminating bad behavior.

I think that's the purpose of DevRel for developer<->developer, and
ComRel for developer<->non-developer.

Yes, such mentoring requires a non-negligable committment to
non-trivial work.

It is clearly not always possible to mentor bad behavior away. Then
that person must be shut out to save the environment, whether a
long-standing developer or not!


Coming back to the concrete proposal, I think a better course of
action is to demonstrate strong leadership, by speaking out in force
against bad behavior, every time.

In order to have something to lean on, it can be super helpful to
have a code-of-conduct in place, and was already mentioned.

I had to think about code-of-conduct for a long time, before my
mental model of them "clicked". I consider them to be about
explicitly stating the community expectations for good behavior,
and as an agreed-upon reference for (sometimes unpleasant, but
incredibly important) forceful action in reponse to bad behavior.


> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'.

I find this highly inadequate.


I urge either ComRel or other leadership to take as forceful action
as is neccessary against bad behavior, to uphold a healthy
environment.

Selective moderation is a more technically sophisticated ban. If
possible that's cool. If not possible that's perfectly fine. Just
ban. Keep banning if the bad behavior resurfaces with another
identity.

Please do not relent. It is not fair to yourself or your colleagues.


Thank you and keep up the excellent effort everyone

//Peter



Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Alec Warner
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:

> W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶52 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner
> napisał:
> > On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but
> it
> > > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > >
> > >
> > > Problems
> > > 
> > >
> > > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > >
> > > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> > > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> > > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> > > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> > >
> > > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> > > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> > > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> > > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst,
> sometimes
> > > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> > >
> > > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> > > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> > > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> > > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> > >
> > >
> > > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible
> to
> > > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> > > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> > > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> > > activity.
> > >
> > > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> > > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> > > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Proposal
> > > 
> > >
> > > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> > > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > >
> > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > >
> > > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > >
> > > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> >
> >
> > > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > >
> > > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has
> now.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rationale
> > > =
> > >
> > > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> > > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all
> other
> > > options to no avail.
> > >
> > > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> > > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> > > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> > > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> > >
> > > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> > > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> > >
> > > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> > > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> > >
> > > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> > > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> > >
> >
> > A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing.
> > The only difference is
> > that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post.
> > But lets say hyptothetically
> > Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
> > list. If ComRel will not take any action
> > (due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?
>
> Well, I believe the main difference is that the approval process makes
> it harder to evade a ban.
>
> If you need a voice, you need to get a developer to vouch for you.
> If you have just been banned, you won't immediately regain the access
> for the same identity. And unless you've actively maintaining a second
> identity for yourself, you won't get immediate access to evade the ban.
>

Oh it was not clear we would ban people from the proposed 'gentoo-dev' list
based on your 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread kuzetsa
More than zero posts on this thread are consistent with this point:

On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.

If things are a bug, it should be filed as a bug: when there's a fault, or a
feature request, or any other thing which can go to the tracker, so b.g.o
is the right place if it affects multiple configurations and needs
addressed.

Anything [mis]configuration related, or if it's unclear could likely go
to an
official support channel if it's gentoo-specific, or even upstream support.
An expert user list would be a fine place for that too.

Not all resolutions require a developer, and this likely includes
misunderstandings or disagreements on how things were handled too.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Richard Bradfield

On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 11:33:11PM +0100, Gerion Entrup wrote:

I'm a long term Gentoo user, but have read this list a few month only, so
correct me, if I'm wrong. I've seen the main usage of this list in three
aspects:
1. Review and discussion of new (technical) features (eclasses, EAPI, package
manager specs).
2. Information about unmaintained packages.
3. Input and proposals from users.

Splitting the list would reduce the meaning of gentoo-dev to the first point.
The second point has to be handled on the expert list (or both lists), so
proxy maintainers can reply. The third point can only be handled on the expert
list, but core developers have to read it, otherwise the whole point would be
meaningless.

In other projects with similar problems but the technical possibility to 
moderate
some "code of conduct" was adopted, so moderators can ban users on that base
for a fixed amount of time.

Gerion


I'm normally just a lurker in this list, so the changes are unlikely to affect 
me
directly, but I think Gerion hits it on the head here.

Is there such a stratification between "Gentoo Developers" (and those
'blessed' by such developers) and "Expert Gentoo Users" that justifies
silo-ing the two groups off into their own mailing lists?

If this distinction is present and vitally important, then by all means
create a separate list, but is the reduction in traffic really worth the
loss of input from your long-term, but "non developer" users?

If this is really a moderation issue, surely the bad actors will simply move
their alleged trolling to the -experts list, which will cause the core
developers to cease reading it, leading to a breakdown in the user to
developer discussions that currently take place via -dev?

--
Richard


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Gerion Entrup
Am Sonntag, 3. Dezember 2017, 22:43:19 CET schrieb Michał Górny:
> W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 21∶30 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan
> Ochtman napisał:
> > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> > 
> > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > > 
> > > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > > 
> > > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> > > 
> > 
> > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be
> > better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who
> > move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> > the specific posts if necessary?
> 
> I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj
> has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did,
> moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low-
> traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well.
> 
> > 
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > > 
> > > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the
> > audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from
> > existing mailing lists?
> 
> The audience is expect users who usually don't need basic support
> but instead want to discuss the development of Gentoo and want to have
> some impact on where it goes.
> 
> The main goal is to be able to restore more developers to gentoo-dev@,
> and be able to focus it on feedback and reviews.
> 
> In other words, the goal is that if the attitude on gentoo-expert
> becomes impossible to bear, the developers can unsubscribe from that
> list without actually losing the ability to give feedback on important
> Gentoo issues.
If core Gentoo developers don't read the expert list, I'm not seeing a high
value in such a list.

I'm a long term Gentoo user, but have read this list a few month only, so
correct me, if I'm wrong. I've seen the main usage of this list in three
aspects:
1. Review and discussion of new (technical) features (eclasses, EAPI, package
manager specs).
2. Information about unmaintained packages.
3. Input and proposals from users.

Splitting the list would reduce the meaning of gentoo-dev to the first point.
The second point has to be handled on the expert list (or both lists), so
proxy maintainers can reply. The third point can only be handled on the expert
list, but core developers have to read it, otherwise the whole point would be
meaningless.

In other projects with similar problems but the technical possibility to 
moderate
some "code of conduct" was adopted, so moderators can ban users on that base
for a fixed amount of time.

Gerion


> 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Dirkjan
> 
> 



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


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu sob, 02.12.2017 o godzinie 19∶33 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1
napisał:
> Hello,
> 
> In every mailing list conversation, there are at least three people:
> the two conversing, and the future reader. I point this out as I think
> it important that everyone realize that not all posts are written for
> those immediately participating in the conversation.
> 
> Some time ago I was offered some equipment due to my history of
> open-source contributions to a variety of projects. I asked the donor
> to forward it (or money) to the Gentoo foundation, but they declined,
> citing a general distaste for the management of software projects in
> general and specific issues they believed existed within Gentoo.

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the topic at hand. There are many
issues within Gentoo. I'm trying to address one of them.

> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> > Hello, everyone.
> > 
> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > 
> 
> If you have in fact discussed this off list with people who agree, I
> think it is important that you invite them to comment. Not only will
> it show support for what you have detailed, it will allow them to
> explain the problems they have in greater detail, so that perhaps a
> solution that does not involve restricting list access could be found.

This sentence merely focuses on 'don't shoot the messenger' part which
will happen anyway. Those people won't come here to '+1' the proposal
because this mailing list is not supposed to be about mail popularity
contests.

Also because they don't want to be targeted by people misbehaving here.
In fact, a number of them already pinged me today privately showing
support, and some of them told me exactly that -- that they don't want
to become a target of aggression. A few participants of this mailing
list have shown harassment towards people that stood up to them --
including constant insults on various public and private channels.

> 
> It may be that I am misunderstanding your language, but what you have
> presented does not leave many things open for discussion. It seems
> like what you have presented is to be either accepted or rejected as
> is. Seeing as my opinion does not matter, it further seems like it
> will simply be accepted as is.

I simply don't believe that after so many iterations there's any more
option that hasn't been tried or rejected already.

> > 
> > Problems
> > 
> > 
> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > 
> > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> > 
> 
> No one has any right to not be offended. If Gentoo developers are
> receiving criticism for their behavior, then perhaps it would be best
> that they critically analyze their actions and the effect that they
> have on other people.
> 
> As far as I am aware most developers never get harassed and go quietly
> on about their business. I have even asked some questions similar to
> the questions I have asked on this list that people have felt were
> adversarial. However, these developers didn't seem to mind my
> questions and spent 5 minutes or so of their time on a response.
> 
> > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> > 
> 
> Does the list have a digest subscription option? I find that extremely
> helpful for one list I am subscribed to (Perl6 development) which is
> very high volume. On the other hand, lots of offtopic chatter would
> still be hard to sort through, but I think it needs to be considered
> whether the chatter the list currently receives is truly off topic.
> What if it is simply concerns or subjects that the OP did not want to
> consider? Does that make it off topic? Is the problem more involved
> than previously thought?
> 
> > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> > 
> 
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 21∶30 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan
Ochtman napisał:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > 
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> > 
> 
> On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be
> better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who
> move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> the specific posts if necessary?

I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj
has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did,
moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low-
traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well.

> 
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > 
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the
> audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from
> existing mailing lists?

The audience is expect users who usually don't need basic support
but instead want to discuss the development of Gentoo and want to have
some impact on where it goes.

The main goal is to be able to restore more developers to gentoo-dev@,
and be able to focus it on feedback and reviews.

In other words, the goal is that if the attitude on gentoo-expert
becomes impossible to bear, the developers can unsubscribe from that
list without actually losing the ability to give feedback on important
Gentoo issues.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dirkjan

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny




Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 20∶19 +0100, użytkownik Róbert
Čerňanský napisał:
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 00:18:04 +0100
> Michał Górny  wrote:
> 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > 
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> > 
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > 
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has
> > now.
> 
> Hi Michał,
> 
> I fully understand and support the need of pure dev to dev
> mailing list.  On the other side I also see the need for an official
> (mailing list) channel through which users can reach developers.  And
> with the proposed change we (users) loose that channel.  I am not sure
> if gentoo-expert was meant to be such channel; if not could you please
> consider it?  If yes then I think gentoo-dev-user or gentoo-user-dev
> would be more appropriate name.
> 

The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through Bugzilla.
This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the specific issue
without unnecessary distraction for other developers who are not
interested in the specific topic.

And yes, gentoo-expert would be a secondary way of reaching developers
in specific technical topics. However, depending on the atmosphere
around the new channel some developers may decide not to use it (much
like they choose to ignore -dev currently).

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny




Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 19∶34 +0100, użytkownik Vincent-Xavier 
JUMEL napisał:
> Hello there,
> 
> Le 03 décembre à 00:18 Michał Górny a écrit
> > Hello, everyone.
> > 
> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > 
> > 
> > Problems
> > 
> > 
> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > 
> 
> I've been a Gentoo user and gentoo-dev@ mailing list subscriber for
> around ten years and some of your action and decision bother me a lot.
> This one seems to be one of the last and I'm considering quitting Gentoo
> in favour of some other and more friendly place.
> 
> I've been wondering for year if it was worth becoming a “official”
> Gentoo developer or if maintaining my own (maybe crappy but usefull)
> ebuilds in my repo was sufficient.

I'm sorry that you feel this way but I respect your choice.

> Instead of dealing with everyone in a blow that could send away
> (expert) users, maybe you could deal only with the nay-sayers that you
> speak of.

Multiple people have tried, and as explained in the long rationale we
haven't had any success. If you have a constructive ideas how to solve
the problem otherwise, we're open to hear them. That's the whole purpose
of this thread.

> In my opinion, I mostly find your work admirable but your answers non
> constructive, and full of insults too.

Truth is, people change in toxic environments. I can't solve all
the problems immediately but I believe this is the first step towards
improving things, also in myself and other developers having problems.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny




Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 09:30:36PM +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> >
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> >
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> >
> 
> On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be
> better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who
> move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> the specific posts if necessary?

I prefer this approach, I'm not in favor of closing -dev and -project.
However, I don't see anything wrong with putting specific users on
moderation for a while as long as the mailing list software we have can
support doing this.

> 
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> >
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the
> audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from
> existing mailing lists?

In particular, how is it different from gentoo-user? There's nothing
stopping devs from subscribing there.

Thanks,

William



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶52 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner
napisał:
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> 
> > Hello, everyone.
> > 
> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > 
> > 
> > Problems
> > 
> > 
> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > 
> > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> > 
> > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> > 
> > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> > 
> > 
> > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> > activity.
> > 
> > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
> 
> 
> > 
> > Proposal
> > 
> > 
> > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > 
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> 
> 
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > 
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> > 
> > 
> > Rationale
> > =
> > 
> > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> > options to no avail.
> > 
> > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> > 
> > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> > 
> > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> > 
> > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> > 
> 
> A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing.
> The only difference is
> that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post.
> But lets say hyptothetically
> Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
> list. If ComRel will not take any action
> (due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?

Well, I believe the main difference is that the approval process makes
it harder to evade a ban.

If you need a voice, you need to get a developer to vouch for you.
If you have just been banned, you won't immediately regain the access
for the same identity. And unless you've actively maintaining a second
identity for yourself, you won't get immediate access to evade the ban.

Yes, it only solves the problem temporarily. However, 'temporarily' is
sometimes enough to avoid the immediate 'shitstorm' (I'm sorry for
lacking a better word for it) that results in some people not being able
to accept their ban.

As for point B, I believe that there is also a serious difference when
the user is pointed to another channel where he can 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Damo Brisbane
"suspicious of" to strong a word - "wary of" !

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Damo Brisbane  wrote:

> As a relative newbie I wonder about the format generally of the lists,
> however "unbroken", I would be concerned about a dated look. Also, IMO
> anything requiring "manual restructuring" - verses automation - I am a
> little suspicious of. If dumb stuff is coming through, why cant the good
> stuff be automatically curated and presented on top of existing lists? ie
> run a PoC, curated content targeting mobile users. From there drivers may
> emerge for incorporating updates or come back to suggestions herein.
>
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
>
>> Hello, everyone.
>>
>> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
>> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
>> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
>> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>>
>>
>> Problems
>> 
>>
>> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
>> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
>> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
>> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>>
>> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
>> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
>> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
>> person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>>
>> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
>> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
>> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
>> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
>> you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
>>
>> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
>> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
>> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
>> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
>>
>>
>> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
>> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
>> demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
>> either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
>> activity.
>>
>> For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
>> and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
>> of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
>>
>>
>> Proposal
>> 
>>
>> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
>> establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>>
>> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
>> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>>
>> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>>
>> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
>> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
>>
>> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
>> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>>
>> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>>
>>
>> Rationale
>> =
>>
>> I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
>> would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
>> options to no avail.
>>
>> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
>> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
>> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
>> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>>
>> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
>> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
>>
>> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
>> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
>>
>> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
>> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
>>
>>
>> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
>> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
>> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
>> really solve the problem because:
>>
>> I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
>> nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
>> to themselves.
>>
>> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
>> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
>> be lured into discussing with them.
>>
>> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Damo Brisbane
As a relative newbie I wonder about the format generally of the lists,
however "unbroken", I would be concerned about a dated look. Also, IMO
anything requiring "manual restructuring" - verses automation - I am a
little suspicious of. If dumb stuff is coming through, why cant the good
stuff be automatically curated and presented on top of existing lists? ie
run a PoC, curated content targeting mobile users. From there drivers may
emerge for incorporating updates or come back to suggestions herein.

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>
>
> Problems
> 
>
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>
> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>
> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
>
> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
>
>
> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> activity.
>
> For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
>
>
> Proposal
> 
>
> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>
> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
>
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>
>
> Rationale
> =
>
> I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> options to no avail.
>
> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>
> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
>
> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
>
> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
>
>
> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> really solve the problem because:
>
> I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> to themselves.
>
> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> be lured into discussing with them.
>
> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
>
>
> Yet another 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:

> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
>

On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be
better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who
move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
the specific posts if necessary?

2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>

I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the
audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from
existing mailing lists?

Cheers,

Dirkjan


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Róbert Čerňanský
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 00:18:04 +0100
Michał Górny  wrote:

> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> 
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> 
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> 
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> 
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has
> now.

Hi Michał,

I fully understand and support the need of pure dev to dev
mailing list.  On the other side I also see the need for an official
(mailing list) channel through which users can reach developers.  And
with the proposed change we (users) loose that channel.  I am not sure
if gentoo-expert was meant to be such channel; if not could you please
consider it?  If yes then I think gentoo-dev-user or gentoo-user-dev
would be more appropriate name.

Best regards,
Robert


-- 
Róbert Čerňanský
E-mail: ope...@tightmail.com
Jabber: h...@jabber.sk



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Alec Warner
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>
>
> Problems
> 
>
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>
> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>
> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
>
> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
>
>
> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> activity.
>
> For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!


>
> Proposal
> 
>
> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>
> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.


> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>
>
> Rationale
> =
>
> I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> options to no avail.
>
> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>
> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
>
> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
>
> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
>

A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing.
The only difference is
that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post.
But lets say hyptothetically
Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
list. If ComRel will not take any action
(due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?

This isn't to say I advocate against trying, but it might just end up the
same as today.


>
> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> really solve the problem because:
>
> I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> to themselves.
>
> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> be lured into discussing with them.
>
> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
>

So now we only silently consent to misbehavior on mailing lists 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Vincent-Xavier JUMEL
Hello there,

Le 03 décembre à 00:18 Michał Górny a écrit
> Hello, everyone.
> 
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> 
> 
> Problems
> 
> 
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> 
I've been a Gentoo user and gentoo-dev@ mailing list subscriber for
around ten years and some of your action and decision bother me a lot.
This one seems to be one of the last and I'm considering quitting Gentoo
in favour of some other and more friendly place.

I've been wondering for year if it was worth becoming a “official”
Gentoo developer or if maintaining my own (maybe crappy but usefull)
ebuilds in my repo was sufficient.

Instead of dealing with everyone in a blow that could send away
(expert) users, maybe you could deal only with the nay-sayers that you
speak of.

In my opinion, I mostly find your work admirable but your answers non
constructive, and full of insults too.
-- 
Vincent-Xavier JUMEL Id: https://keybase.io/vincentxavier 
https://blog.thetys-retz.net

Société Libre, Logiciel Libre http://www.april.org/adherer
Parinux, logiciel libre à Paris : http://www.parinux.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread kuzetsa
1 / 1b seems reasonable for mitigating signal/noise issues.

(previously unaware non-dev subscribers //currently// could post)


On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> ...establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>
> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-02 Thread R0b0t1
Hello,

In every mailing list conversation, there are at least three people:
the two conversing, and the future reader. I point this out as I think
it important that everyone realize that not all posts are written for
those immediately participating in the conversation.

Some time ago I was offered some equipment due to my history of
open-source contributions to a variety of projects. I asked the donor
to forward it (or money) to the Gentoo foundation, but they declined,
citing a general distaste for the management of software projects in
general and specific issues they believed existed within Gentoo.


On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>

If you have in fact discussed this off list with people who agree, I
think it is important that you invite them to comment. Not only will
it show support for what you have detailed, it will allow them to
explain the problems they have in greater detail, so that perhaps a
solution that does not involve restricting list access could be found.

It may be that I am misunderstanding your language, but what you have
presented does not leave many things open for discussion. It seems
like what you have presented is to be either accepted or rejected as
is. Seeing as my opinion does not matter, it further seems like it
will simply be accepted as is.

>
> Problems
> 
>
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>
> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>

No one has any right to not be offended. If Gentoo developers are
receiving criticism for their behavior, then perhaps it would be best
that they critically analyze their actions and the effect that they
have on other people.

As far as I am aware most developers never get harassed and go quietly
on about their business. I have even asked some questions similar to
the questions I have asked on this list that people have felt were
adversarial. However, these developers didn't seem to mind my
questions and spent 5 minutes or so of their time on a response.

> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
>

Does the list have a digest subscription option? I find that extremely
helpful for one list I am subscribed to (Perl6 development) which is
very high volume. On the other hand, lots of offtopic chatter would
still be hard to sort through, but I think it needs to be considered
whether the chatter the list currently receives is truly off topic.
What if it is simply concerns or subjects that the OP did not want to
consider? Does that make it off topic? Is the problem more involved
than previously thought?

> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
>

In the case of actual support requests, it might be worth taking some
kind of action against the user, but the general level of competence
of Gentoo users makes me wary that this may be a mischaracterization
of the intent of the email. If something like a "support request"
percolates to gentoo-dev, it may be of a similar vein as a complaint
about a bug resolution. Complaining about bug resolutions seems valid,
especially if questions on the tracker have been ignored.

Some developers in particular seem to not appreciate being held
accountable for their actions. In most notable cases, all anyone ever
does is ask for an explanation as to why something occurred - and in
most notable cases, that question is ignored, with no recourse left to
the user or contributor.

Personally, I tried to ask why eix's "optimizations" flag was removed,
when other packages *do the exact same thing.* Still no response. How
am I supposed to interpret this?

>
> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> demotivated in the process. A