On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Yaron Koren wrote:
> I suppose that one solution which hasn't been discussed yet is to change
> the wording of that file so that it says something more defensible, like
> "This extension is hosted on facilities governed by the Code of Conduct",
> or that kind of
On 08/06/2018 15:26, Stephan Gambke wrote:
> Incidentally, what is the procedure to request removal of +2 rights for
> somebody on my extension repo?
Hello,
In Gerrit, the Mediawiki extensions all inherit rights from the
'mediawiki' group which has a lot of people:
Hi!
> I agree. I do think that as a community of practice we have many
> unwritten rules and numerous expectations of how we work together. We
> don't explicitly define the expectation of a README.MD file in repos
> either.[0] It's a best practice and cultural expectation in our spaces
> to
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Stephan Gambke
wrote:
>
> It is not the first time that individual developers have misused their +2
> rights to sidestep community processes and enforce their political views.
> It is this kind of repeated overreach and casual disregard for the wishes
> and
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Nischay Nahata
wrote:
> Also, its strange that someone can just remove someone else's code review
> just like that on gerrit, add their own review and merge a patch.
>
This ability is very useful in some cases - for example, imagine a
VisualEditor patch marked
Hello,
I had a lot of interactions this week with various people, specially
since I have spamed a lot of mediawiki extensions with random patches.
So this is my thank you thread to a few people, feel free to reply with
your own thanks to others so we all get a nice week-end.
Thank you Yaron
I for one definitely support the "concept" of a CoC; and the enforcement of
it.
I also definitely agree with Yaron. He's not even arguing about the merits
of a CoC. He's simply stating that the file doesn't belong in every single
repo. I wholeheartedly agree with that position. He's also arguing
Well, thanks gents for the replies. It looks like I was wrong in
assuming we were on the same page.
I lack the emotional energy to keep up with this discussion for now. I
appreciate Yaron taking the time to be open to my questions and
conversations. I hope you can figure it all out. Have a good
Tony Thomas <01tonythomas at gmail.com> wrote:
> Scenario: I am new contributor looking at your repository (possibly
> would've contributed to couple of repos in the past in Github). As a
> maintainer of this repo, how do you want me to know that my interactions
> with your product, which might
I noticed CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md apparently wasn't forcibly added to
repositories hosted on GitHub that are within the Wikimedia organization
(some Diffusion repos too, it seems). GitHub is not WMF infrastructure,
sure, but github.com/wikimedia/wmf-built-toolforge-tool certainly qualifies
as a
Yep. If anything, the consensus here demonstrates the opposite.
Fae
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018, 17:42 John, wrote:
> > Where? So far it's been a few individuals.
>
>
> Here, here. Can you please cite the clear community decision you are
> referencing? Just because a few users took unilaterally
> Where? So far it's been a few individuals.
Here, here. Can you please cite the clear community decision you are
referencing? Just because a few users took unilaterally actions and most
people didn't object, that isn't
consensus.
___
Wikitech-l
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018, 17:08 Chris Koerner, wrote:
> > You probably meant just "README". This is an interesting comparison. So,
> if
> > an extension lacks a README file, and that extension's maintainer refuses
> > to put one in, should the extension be deleted from the Wikimedia
> > repository?
>
On Friday, June 8, 2018, Chris Koerner
> [snip]
> There are voices not present in this very public conversation. I have
> been approached by a few that do not feel comfortable participating
> here. I don't want to see anyone's contributions deleted. I also don't
> want to see an exception made in
On Friday, June 8, 2018, Chris Koerner wrote:
>> I for one think that requiring a specific filesystem structure or notice
in
>> a git repo is quite far afield from the sorts of things that CoC is
>> designed to deal with.
>
> I agree. I do think that as a community of practice we have many
>
> You probably meant just "README". This is an interesting comparison. So, if
> an extension lacks a README file, and that extension's maintainer refuses
> to put one in, should the extension be deleted from the Wikimedia
> repository?
Let's back away from the ledge of deleting stuff. I'm not
Chris Koerner wrote:
> I agree. I do think that as a community of practice we have many
> unwritten rules and numerous expectations of how we work together. We
> don't explicitly define the expectation of a README.MD file in repos
> either.[0] It's a best practice and cultural expectation in our
> I for one think that requiring a specific filesystem structure or notice in
> a git repo is quite far afield from the sorts of things that CoC is
> designed to deal with.
I agree. I do think that as a community of practice we have many
unwritten rules and numerous expectations of how we work
Yaron,
> - Is CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md now really mandatory?
Always looking for more inputs, but it would be great if you can provide a
proposition.
Scenario: I am new contributor looking at your repository (possibly
would've contributed to couple of repos in the past in Github). As a
maintainer of
Hi,
Antoine - thank you; I see now that your statement before to archive my
repository was just because you thought it was no longer in use. I feel
better now.
Gergo Tisza wrote:
> * There can be all kinds of reasons why the CoC file is not appropriate
for
> some repository (which is why it
> Frankly the harsh response from proponents and handling here, to the
> point of bypassing normal processes and misusing rights to enforce
> something that was never even decided as a community, seems completely
> at odds with the spirit and intent of the CoC in the first place. If
> we're
On 08/06/18 09:29, Gergo Tisza wrote:
... I'm sure you
wouldn't act (inside or outside Wikimedia technical spaces) in ways
inconsistent with the spirit of the code of conduct anyway, but this was a
silly fight to pick and I hope you'll reconsider (or if you have pragmatic
reasons for not wanting
I think Gerrit admin permissions were abused to remove the review
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018, 11:57 Nischay Nahata, wrote:
> It did sound like a threat given that no policy has been framed around
> this, but I am glad to know that it was not your intent.
>
> Also, its strange that someone can just
It did sound like a threat given that no policy has been framed around
this, but I am glad to know that it was not your intent.
Also, its strange that someone can just remove someone else's code review
just like that on gerrit, add their own review and merge a patch.
Regards,
Nischay Nahata
On 08/06/2018 06:33, Nischay Nahata wrote:
> I think that advertising the COC might still have been in "good faith",
> though it should have been done with a mail to the project owners.
>
> But what I find very objecting is the way the two developers have
> communicated on the gerrit thread.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:18 AM Daniel Zahn wrote:
> But we should not make it mandatory to keep a copy of this file in each and
> every repo.
>
I'd argue we should, but let me say first that if we do make it mandatory,
that should happen via some mechanism that's appropriate for making policy
Hello,
messages from ma...@blahus.cz are held for moderation with reason saying
"Invalid header" in list wikimediacz-l. The list should allow members to
post everything, non-members should be held for moderation. This is the
only address that is problematic.
I've manually approved the post and I
This. The links should be in the interfaces in which we actually
interact with each other, not the repositories themselves. A repository
isn't even inherently a wikimedia technical space because it can be
cloned anywhere, as Yaron rightfully points out; using
gerrit/phab/things wikimedia
The right place for COC related stuff is probably on the Gerrit user
interface.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 11:48 AM Daniel Zahn wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:40 PM, Max Semenik
> wrote:
>
> > My personal opinion is twofold:
> >
>
> I agree with Max here. The CoC applies anyways whether the file
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:40 PM, Max Semenik wrote:
> My personal opinion is twofold:
>
I agree with Max here. The CoC applies anyways whether the file is in the
repo or not
because Wikimedia infrastructure is being used.
But we should not make it mandatory to keep a copy of this file in each
30 matches
Mail list logo
