Moriel Schottlender wrote:
> In the gerrit commit that started this thing, you, yourself, publicly
wrote
> this:
>
> *"The Site Settings extension uses a bunch of WMF tools and services for
> its development, including hosting. If some random person sends me a patch
> for Site Settings by email,
Heh, an apology here, my autocorrect "fixed" your name, Yaron. I apologize
for that and should have caught it.
... The trouble of multilingual corrections.
Moriel
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 11:37 AM Moriel Schottlender <
mschottlen...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I'm not going to get into the minutia and
I'm not going to get into the minutia and details of how the code of
conduct is or isn't good to work in your repo, that's a separate discussion
that I won't participate in by choice right now.
I am simply pointing out that your own points made a declaration about how
working in the space you are
Hi,
Moriel Schottlender wrote:
> Quite frankly, I don't blame people who regularly experience harassment
> online to avoid spaces where the code of conduct is consciously only
> enforced in parts of the space.
> I, too, don't feel comfortable in joining that space, even for considering
>
This isn't about not wanting that file in (which is a discussion that
should happen) -- this is about what you, yourself, said, about how
interactions are working in your repo.
That's where people decide whether they want to work in your repo or not.
They hear about the expectations in that space,
Hi,
Moriel Schottlender wrote:
> This isn't a personal attack, it's a consequence to your earlier email.
>
> You stated yourself, that one of the reasons you don't think a COC.md file
> should exist in your repository is because not all interactions are
covered
> by it. While that might be
Yaron,
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:35 PM Yaron Koren wrote:
> This looks to me like a violation of the Code of Conduct. I don't want to
> cause more drama in this discussion, especially since it seems like a sort
> of consensus has formed and we can all move on, but I do find it disturbing
> that
Do we have a Terms of Service for Gerrit (or any other technical spaces)?
If not, perhaps we should add one? If so, perhaps we should add the code of
conduct to the terms of using the service?
Examples:
https://www.drupal.org/git-repository-usage-policy
Hi,
Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
> One note particularly about this incident, I personally would be happy if
> Yaron thought the wording is wrong, put the file back with a better
> wording, like "gerrit part of development of this extension is covered by
> the WM CoC".
Maybe I'll do that, now that I
+1
The CoC was supposed to encourage collegiate behavior, not to be an excuse
for those with big white hats to /force/ others to "respect my authoritah",
to quote South Park.
Folks, get a grip. Seeing bad faith accusations and character attacks
against long term contributors, is not why any of
I'll only state the obvious: it's not a community space if the community
feels forced to walk out of it.
Federico
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Here's my 2 cents.
License is one example for me, if you are using gerrit and all of WMF
infrastructure (from jenkins to translatewiki integration) you have to
publish your code with at least one OSI-approved license. You can't say
"All rights reserved" and still use all the benefits that came
I think there's a lot of misunderstanding on this whole thing.
The issue pointed out was that the CoC makes a false feeling of protection
by being in extensions that are developed outside WMF's technical spaces.
That is if I had an issue with an extension's maintainer WMF would refuse
to help as
Taking a step back here...
I agree with you in principle...but
Shared spaces imply that occasionally disputes are going to arise as to
what belongs in a repo. If we dont have a fair method of resolving such
disputes (/my way or the highway/ is not fair), then this model is not
going to work.
--
I'd just like to apologize for dragging the other thread into this one and
being overly personal and failing to assume good faith.
That was a failing on my part, and not good practice.
Please if you respond further to this thread, treat only the narrow issue
of ownership / maintainership
And that's fine and good and should continue, but doesn't mean it's a
shared ownership model. As I was saying before with the analogy, global
users make uncontroversial edits using their rights but aren't supposed to
use their global rights to involve themselves in controversies.
On 9 June 2018
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
CoC.md business aside, I agree with the main thing you've said.
Specifically:
On 06/09/2018 08:58 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> I think we should though clarify that code repositories on gerrit
> and diffusion are not owned by any one person, but
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:55 AM Isarra Yos wrote:
> Perhaps I was too subtle the last time I hinted at this: this is toxic.
> What you and others are doing misrepresenting what others are saying,
> the general heavy-handedness, the implications that anyone against a
> specific aspect of
On 09/06/18 17:30, Brion Vibber wrote:
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:21 AM Alex Monk wrote:
For example where you said "IMHO specifically because some people are
trying to avoid being bound by it or protesting its existence by looking
for loopholes to avoid it", which is not at all what that
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:21 AM Alex Monk wrote:
> On 9 June 2018 at 18:14, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:00 AM Alex Monk wrote:
> >
> > > This is outrageous. Not only are you blatantly misrepresenting what
> > various
> > > people are saying in the other thread and their
On 9 June 2018 at 18:14, Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:00 AM Alex Monk wrote:
>
> > This is outrageous. Not only are you blatantly misrepresenting what
> various
> > people are saying in the other thread and their intentions,
>
>
> Perhaps. I've tried to go by the plain
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:00 AM Alex Monk wrote:
> This is outrageous. Not only are you blatantly misrepresenting what various
> people are saying in the other thread and their intentions,
Perhaps. I've tried to go by the plain readings of position statements and
I could have made a mistake?
This is outrageous. Not only are you blatantly misrepresenting what various
people are saying in the other thread and their intentions, you are now
suggesting that repository owners do not in fact get to decide what goes in
their repository and what does not, as if this has been the case all
Recent threads have demonstrated there seems to be some disconnect about
what is expected about maintainership and ownership of repositories.
This has spilled over into talk about the code of conduct, IMHO
specifically because some people are trying to avoid being bound by it or
protesting its
24 matches
Mail list logo
